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
-
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.
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.
