I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on that!
-
-
-
I'm not sure what forum would be best for elaborating, but my opinion is that "small group peer review", which is the current method, is actively harmful and only made any sense at all when technology didn't exist to do something better.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think this is a property of any system, rule or law, to be corrupted, circumvented and gamed by the damn ingenuity of our species. Everything must change to stay relevant, correct and true to the original intentions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I find the publishing part the part that stifles science. Not the peer review. I mean most of papers don't get published on ResearchHub and thus never becomes widely accessible. The researchers make the same money regardless.
-
They do get published on Sci-Hub, though, don't they?

- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Also stopping the numbers game, evaluating everything with how many citations and ... is super shallow http://www.cosy.sbg.ac.at/~helmut/Stuff/parnas07.pdf …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My big gripe is how the federal government provides grants for these studies and then the paper gets locked behind a paywall. Making money of the taxpayers. It should be public domain if taxpayer money was provided.
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.