It's because there is a huge problem with the scientific publishing business but because people don't want to admit it because it makes science seem "weak" these issues are largely ignored because of other conflicts of (self)interest.
I'm not a scientist in anything but the colloquial term used as description for a curious and interested person, but when I spent time as a sysadmin at a genetics lab I actually had to read papers as part of the job.
I had previously held "science" up on a pedestal, but I quickly learned that bad science abounds even in reputable publications, and is rarely called out (mostly because scientists use publication to further careers largely based on name-on-paper count).
These days, every time I hear some scientist say "I've been published $largenumber of times," I think to myself 1/3 are probably impossible to reproduce, and 1/3 are probably "I developed this field specialized technique so I get a name drop but didn't actually participate in the study."
I'm not a scientist in anything but the colloquial term used as description for a curious and interested person, but when I spent time as a sysadmin at a genetics lab I actually had to read papers as part of the job.
I had previously held "science" up on a pedestal, but I quickly learned that bad science abounds even in reputable publications, and is rarely called out (mostly because scientists use publication to further careers largely based on name-on-paper count).
These days, every time I hear some scientist say "I've been published $largenumber of times," I think to myself 1/3 are probably impossible to reproduce, and 1/3 are probably "I developed this field specialized technique so I get a name drop but didn't actually participate in the study."