Watching nCoV discussion unfold, I’m starting to really like the peer review model of rapidly publishing on arXiv, and hashing out issues via social media. It makes “peer review” look increasingly like the unfair (and fatally slow) ancient process that it is.
-
-
That sounds like an assumption disguised as a statement of fact.
-
3 anon reviewers versus the transparent world. But the former you profit from. Got it. When reviewers can hide behind your process, they can just easily promote falsehoods or censor the truth. Note the people commenting on the preprint have their reputations at stake.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.