I agree with this so much that 100% is not really sufficient. The current science publishing system is worse than useless - it actively retards the progress of science, sometimes catastrophically.https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1451233646761824284 …
-
-
So, instant dissemination, followed by "peer replication", to me that is how the system should begin. There are plenty of details to work out, but the scientific process of the future does not look like chosen-few-peer-review.
-
The issue is never the publication model, but the ranking/evaluation model. Most papers rejected by Nature get published elsewhere. The problem is that there's no way to establish value of research *at the time of publication*, and peer review is a flawed way to do that.
- Show replies
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.