1/ If you look at journal papers as pull requests to a larger (graphical) repository of knowledge, reviewers are wildly overworked maintainers and null-findings are #WONTFIX labels.
That doesn't seem like a healthy structure.
-
-
3/ That really doesn't sound like a good sampling algorithm; the resulting estimates are probably bad; and, the amount of time wasted in replicating invisible work is probably horrific (if you could estimate it). Peer review this way curiously inhibits collaboration.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Isn't that how an influencer is determined, but without the peer review?
-
Yes. ...there are problems with every system
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.