Yes, author are required to provide suggestions. Sadly, I know authors, who influenced the selection of reviewers for a favorable outcome. Pre-conceived conclusions are pushed in-favor of actual results, models are closed, so no replicability. Most opaque practices lead to corruption.

I think authors should not be able to influence reviewer selection because it creates a quid-pro-quo structure. It does not help in advancement of science.

Why is prestige such an important thing when scientific discovery, curiosity and presenting facts could be the whole purpose of scientific endeavors.

Do you think this is true for scientific publications today ? There are too many unsaid rules which are regularly broken. Like authors having no influence on reviewer selection or the lead author not pressurizing the editor because they are experts in the field.

What if the impactful scientific articles were published on free platforms; peer-reviewed by the community ? If we remove prestige from scientific publications i.e., impact scores etc.; things could change. An example : open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu

Could this be an important research question for the scientific community ? Could we come up with alternatives to make science more accessible ? I am sure most people are aligned with the objective but we require collective action.

The remaining people, who might be child predators, and should be punished.

Scientists could however end the dominance of predatory publishers as a starting step. Allow the voices from developing countries an equal footing and ensure that h-indexes become obsolete. Right wing can, in part, attack scientists and science because of the artificial barriers.

Not partially. He would like to use natural gas plants to power AI data centers and this blog is the first step in quelling protests from environmentalists.

Is there a severe shortage of human beings to drive taxis in this world ? Asking from south east asia

Looking for alternative battery supply chains ?