Peer review is something that should happen continuously, in the open, and should have no bearing on the diffusion of a research finding
It makes little sense to have peer review be a step function, where unreviewed/rejected papers are worthless, and accepted papers are worthy
-
-
-
I will note that some of the best papers in our field are preprint-only...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Doesn't journal quality provide the continuum you seek?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are many but Mikolov et al. on word2vec is my canonical example, 3000+ citeshttps://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Welcome to the world of subjectivity, citation cartels and second agendas!
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.