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 …
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori
I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on that!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Singularitarian
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Singularitarian
In an era where publishing to the entire world is free, instant, and ubiquitous, the pipeline should start there, and then focus on whether anyone can _replicate_ a result from the publication, not on people's opinions of what they read. People's opinions are worthless :)
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Singularitarian
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @Singularitarian
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.