Science is dynamic. Academic publishing should be too.
I argue that the academic publishing process as it currently exists is fundamentally antithetical to the advancement of science. Specifically, the way science is supposed to work is that the methods and conclusions of previous research can be scrutinized and improved upon. However, the static nature of articles published in academic journals under the current publication system creates the inaccurate impression that the article exists in its best possible state, without any changes that need to be made to it. It should be possible to publish a much smaller number of articles that can continually be updated and refined as new discoveries are made, instead of an unmanageably and bewilderingly large number of articles on the same topic. This would make it easier to point out and correct errors in a paper and to add results of new experiments as they become available. We no longer need to rely on a system centered around the enshrining of articles in academic journals in the same form forever. Now that such journals do not have to be published in print form, and collaborative scientific platforms like this one are becoming more popular, this is how all science should be conducted.