I may sound a bit naive, but as I read more academic papers in fields that I work in, I realize that they tend to cite academic papers more than blog posts even if there are better blog posts than the cited papers. It makes sense, but just noticing more specifically first hand.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Joi
We really need a new kind of academic publishing that recognizes and creates peer review opportunities for other forms of publication. Want to talk about that? PLOS Currents was an interesting start in the right direction
11 replies 44 retweets 166 likes -
Replying to @timoreilly @Joi
A move in this direction is people whose not-conventionally-published essays are overwhelmingly strong creative contributions.
@worrydream & Terry Tao, for instance, both provide examples. Academic papers look silly if they don't cite them, & the whole political economy changes3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @timoreilly and
One comparatively low overhead way to do this—create a peer review process for things that are already out there. No author submissions needed. Curation by editors, with authors getting invited to have their work reviewed. This ends up looking more like an awards program.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @metaviv @michael_nielsen and
Where will you find these reviewers? Lots of selection problems
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Overlay journals do this, of course. Admittedly, they've grown slowly (proposed in 1996, IIRC). Relatively recent update:https://www.nature.com/news/open-journals-that-piggyback-on-arxiv-gather-momentum-1.19102 …
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.