I don’t care much about papers for my own work because my non-academic career simply doesn’t depend on it. I just want to get the ideas out there and let the code and results speak for themselves. And then continue on with the cool work!https://twitter.com/mrocklin/status/1195550564303532032 …
-
Sadly, most people haven't thought about the topic of peer review hard enough, and almost everyone in science just keeps ploughing ahead with it. 2/2
The core concept I think is essential -having your work open to scrutiny and being reproducible. But yeah the paywalls, the gate keeping, emphasis on ritualistic obfuscation (mathiness), and the quantity over quality push all aren’t helping. Also not everything should be “novel”!
-
-
I'm meaning "peer review process of publication" part is the "net negative" to science. For sure, academics sharing their research in high quality ways is important - no argument.
-
It's slow, expensive (in financial terms, and opportunity cost from reviewers reviewing, rather than doing research), inconsistent, biased, open to abuse. And, apart from all that, there's not much evidence it does anything useful to counter the negatives eg doesn't catch fraud.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.