Nothing wrong with the impact factor as long as it isn't a hindrance to free and timely flow of scientific research results, I should think.
no it's like the paper is unreadable and the text doesn't reflect what's in the repo in github, for example.
-
-
Which preprint server/service are you referring to?
-
arxiv and biorxiv for my area(s)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've reviewed papers to established journals with these exact same characteristics. Review is still important too

-
Certainly, peer review is important. Can be post-publication.
-
how will that fix the structure? Or if more is required for a convincing argument or better story?
-
Communicate first (preprints); collect 'ribbons' (IFs) later, if needed, so delays/costs don't impede knowledge flow.
-
ok
that's exactly what I did with http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/071076 -
I try! Great chat! Really enjoyed it. Goodnight!


pic.twitter.com/OCcKSBEqyn
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I mean deep structural mistakes.
-
I dunno if I'm deja vu'ing but I feel like I've been over this with you before...?
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.
