so your point is that bad reviewing (conference/journal) is worse than no reviewing at all (arxiv)?
Peer review: a ton of scientists commenting on this paper in the past few days. Conference/journal peer review is closed and often terrible.https://twitter.com/berty38/status/799691999141974016 …
-
-
-
how does tens (hundreds?) of reviews of this paper qualify as "no reviewing"?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@berty38 one could say exactly the same thing about fake news -
it is easy to establish that fake news are fake, we don't need journalistic peer review (fact checking?) for that.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
. Personally, I am up for open review but i think we are lacking a proper way of converting those reviews into decisions.
-
yes, arXiv does not try to record consensus. Still better than closed journals though...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It’s great that this paper is “rejected” by public comments, but it’s not trivial for a layperson to find our comments.
-
or even other scientists, tomorrow.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
arXiv is a great tool and resource, but we need to educate non-scientists on how it works and how it differs from confs/journals
-
which, I agree, are very flawed as well!
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.