Imagine this statement in any other profession. Imagine a lawyer feeling guilty at giving work to a colleague. Funders should acknowledge the cost of publishing and fund it. Then we could pay people for their work. We wouldn’t have to run a whole profession on guilt.
-
-
Replying to @behrenstimb @SussilloDavid
Paid reviewing would certainly be one way around it! Alternative would be to do as
@TonyZador suggests, and just preprint with post review. I bet only very interested parties would post reviews, and chasing down wouldn't have to happen.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Both. The Michelin guide evaluates restaurants that are already running. It still needs to pay its critics.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @andpru @tyrell_turing and
Yes that is where elife is going. Baby steps with latest trial but aiming for big steps. But we need to go there well. We need to direct attention to the correct papers. We need good and rich post pub evaluation.
0 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @andpru @tyrell_turing and
If I have my way we will also Lobby funding agencies to fund journals directly. But that is a long road.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @behrenstimb @andpru and
the problem isn't just the $10B that we waste on publisher profits (though that is a problem). It's the fact that the dissemination of results is delayed sometimes by years as a paper winds its way through the review process. We shouldn't rely on journals as gatekeepers
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @TonyZador @behrenstimb and
Ultimately, post-reviewers just rate (versions of) papers 1-10, where 9+ means “would accept in current form at Nature/Science”. Then, just filter your feed for 9+ reviews and you’re reading “Nature”. Eisen is working on it:https://asapbio.org/eisen-appraise
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @AdamMarblestone @TonyZador and
No ratings, please. That reintroduces many of the same biases that cause problems with the current system. Just say if it’s rigorous or not like
@PubPeer There are more scholarly ways to highlight good work than just lazily rating a buddy’s work highly.1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes
Yeah. I wasn’t so clear in what I meant by ratings. I was referring to Eisen’s idea that rather than a series of serial *binary* journal accept/reject decisions, serious “unbiased” reviewers (similar to today’s) could place a paper within hierarchies in 1 shot, saving much time.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.