I think in addition to these, it's also worth considering why the well is poisonable in the first place. I don't agree with @KriegeskorteLab but I don't think they are wrong here. Who am I and why does what I think matter? This game is scale free, possessing self-similarity.
-
-
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
Some version of it is at play at all scales. If judgement was according to fit with reader's knowledge + work's content (auto-regularized by diversity of readers' focus) but not afflicted by renown of authors or prestige of location published, then automatically,
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
So many things would be bettered. Wells would be more poison resistant. To be honest, current discussions do nothing to improve the situation for those disqualified from participation simply for the place of their birth and or wealth but such an evening of the playing field would
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
I found the recent paper fascinating and do not agree with
@KriegeskorteLab and in fact think he is wrong in most of his discussion. Most would say, Who are you to go against them? rather than, "Why do you think that?". That's the real poison IMO.2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
The Proxies people use are terrible filters. And ability to rate a work, beyond "this famous person doesn't like it so I'll ignore it", should, at least, be the minimum expected for any path materially influencing a paper. Ironically, the scientific system still doesnt know how
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
to handle work that is at the edge of what's known--counter to what's known about good exploration of models. At least it should be made less brittle to directions being overwhelmed by prestige concerns. Even now, I feel guilty for writing something so long.
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
But this is partly because the value of opinions are weighted by who has written them.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @sir_deenicus @twitemp1 and
That's not a completely crazy thing though, it just means that we make use of priors when evaluating complex arguments. These priors can lead us astray of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bradpwyble @sir_deenicus and
The idea that opinions will be ignored, not reach as big audience, be held to a higher standard can drive people not to express them at all though.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @sir_deenicus and
I Agree. There are serious drawbacks to using priors/heuristics. I also agree that using anonymous review is potentially a good way to selectively deny the use of such priors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yup. And formal open review can be de-anonymised (later, after replies, and if accepted) anyway.
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.