It pretty much is the logic — except replace digital media with paper.
It’s also “why” research papers can’t have color pictures or tables of raw data — because they’re expensive to print.
Scientists internalised their limitations and treat these as virtues now.
Limited space in printing means you have to “get in”, and that exclusivity has a cachet. They also now advise each other that photos are “not real science” (too much color!) and raw data shouldn’t be published at all.
I was making a joke to highlight how inane this is in an era where I can keep every paper ever published on one hard drive.
The same people that complain about negative results or reproductions not getting published will defend these limitations to the death.
Just because the storage is free doesn't mean there's no cost. It costs everyone time to read: the editorial staff, people who subscribe to the journal, etc. It costs copyediting time. More content creates more work.
It’s also “why” research papers can’t have color pictures or tables of raw data — because they’re expensive to print.
Scientists internalised their limitations and treat these as virtues now.
Limited space in printing means you have to “get in”, and that exclusivity has a cachet. They also now advise each other that photos are “not real science” (too much color!) and raw data shouldn’t be published at all.
I was making a joke to highlight how inane this is in an era where I can keep every paper ever published on one hard drive.
The same people that complain about negative results or reproductions not getting published will defend these limitations to the death.