I assume @froggleston wants to reduce its present real value via systemic change. But revolutionary action may alter this.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @froggleston
I'm all for systemic change, but too many parties have to agree. Preprints can be a systemic bypass. I hope.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Villavelius @froggleston
some that I see are so terrible though like not even proof read
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @froggleston
What is the real value of proofreading to the actual scientific communication? Is it not mainly just cosmetic?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Villavelius @froggleston
no it's like the paper is unreadable and the text doesn't reflect what's in the repo in github, for example.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Villavelius
I've reviewed papers to established journals with these exact same characteristics. Review is still important too
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @froggleston @o_guest
Certainly, peer review is important. Can be post-publication.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Villavelius @froggleston
how will that fix the structure? Or if more is required for a convincing argument or better story?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @froggleston
Communicate first (preprints); collect 'ribbons' (IFs) later, if needed, so delays/costs don't impede knowledge flow.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Villavelius @froggleston
ok
that's exactly what I did with http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/071076 2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
these comments were very very useful
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/08/24/071076#comment-2858281853 …
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.