things science needs:
- grants to reward risk over incremental innovation
- micro-bounties for specific research breakthroughs
- rewards for 'whistleblowing' on assumptions
- more funding for basic research
**more people thinking about this stuff**
cc: @james_ough @alexeyguzey
-
I'd vote for elimination of anonymous peer review. In practice, this means that those who compete with you for limited research funding get to anonymously reject your work. Has killed off lots of good science.
Peer review is a solution for publishing not science. Getting it done is a matter of begging reviewers for their time (I know, I run a journal). arXiv has no reviews yet open availability makes it a nonissue. Good papers get cited, that’s much better review.
-
-
I had a prominent finance prof refusing to cite my paper that was 15 years prior to publish the same ideas and was posted in arXiv q-fin and SSRN because “it’s not been published in a refereed journal”, as if it invalidates precedence. That would never happen in physics.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In all fairness, this only applies to fields where arXiv is universally accepted as a record of publication, such as physics or (don’t know what else, honestly). In medicine or economics you surely can’t do that. Even in math I think it’s not yet sufficient.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.