Discussions of peer-review should address attention inequality. Formal review smoothes the rugged landscape (if only by a bit).
Tim Gowers with a thoughtful article on whether science needs the usual process of formal peer review:https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/the-end-of-an-error-peer-review/ …
-
-
-
What's the evidence formal review smooths the landscape? My anecdotal impression is exactly the opposite.
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Nice article. It is clear arXiv works well for people with established reputations. Need more ideas to promote work of less famous people
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Good article, but valuing publication in journals lets administrators pretend they can choose grants to fund and professors for tenure.
-
So your options are: 1) "the whole system is corrupt and must collapse" 2) "here's a new metric that's better and harder to abuse"
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
IMO scientific publishing should work like Stack Exchange. The community has the right to decide and everyone has the right to publish.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Fascinating! One thing implied but not discussed: lower barrier to entry for preprints means less resistant to error-checking?
-
Like
@StatModeling wrote about (dis)analogy between big reports open-source software and replication attempts in scientific papers
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.