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.
-
Show this thread
-
2/ Alternatively: let's estimate the contribution of some work using a pass/fail assignment generated by approximately three people; then, let's use the structure of the accepted contributions to assign authority; then, let's use authority to allocate future scholarly attention.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread
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.
0 replies
1 retweet
3 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.