🧨 The Reality of Academic Publishing: Why the System Is Rigged

Academic publishing is broken. If you’re not part of the club, you’re not getting in — no matter how groundbreaking your work is. Let’s break down the dysfunction:

🔒 Opaque Process

Unlike patents, there’s no universal procedure. No clear form. No roadmap. You’re expected to “just know” — or better yet, “just know someone.” If you’re not already in the network, you’re invisible.

🧊 Ghosting Is the Norm

Submit your work cold? Expect silence. Many journals won’t even acknowledge your existence unless you’re affiliated with their institution or already in their circle. It’s not merit-based — it’s network-based.

🧪 Peer Review ≠ Fair Review

Peer review sounds noble, but in practice it’s often a gatekeeping mechanism. It’s not about the quality of your discovery — it’s about whether it fits their narrative, their funding, and their comfort zone.

🔁 The Feedback Loop of “Published Literature”

Platforms like Wikipedia rely on “published literature” as the gold standard. But that literature only recognizes what’s already recognized. It’s a recursive loop that shuts out innovation from the margins.

🧠 Brands Over Brains

Truth isn’t determined by logic or evidence — it’s determined by brand affiliation. If your work isn’t backed by a recognized institution, it’s dismissed. Common sense? Doesn’t matter. It’s all about citations and clout.

---

🚀 The Real Scientific Standard

Sites like GitHub, DEV, and independent forums are the new frontier. They host real code, real collaboration, and real transparency. If you’re building something that matters, publish it where people actually care — not where gatekeepers decide what’s “valid.”