But why is editor more reliable than the reviewer? Better then to have open discussion (like eLife). But debate is any case academic, as identifying authors is usually quite easy (there is software for this).
-
-
Not looking at author means throwing away information. Larger probl. are the opaque nature of reviewing and publishing. Wrongly rejected papers remain invisible. Comments: invisible. Previous versions: invisible
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PieterHog @magnusnordborg and
Follow-ups can't be added. Post publication comments can't be added. This was a great model for publishing The Bible or something. But not for a collaborative, moving, learning system.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @PieterHog @magnusnordborg and
Publishing model: - opaque research plan, data collection, analysis, writing - opaque reviewing phase - PUBLICATION! - badly organized post-publication phase, with - discouragement of replications, no possibility for Q&A, no data sharing etc.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @PieterHog @magnusnordborg and
I'd say that software development model "release soon, release often" is a better model for science than the "Bible model". In contrast to divine authors, humans need feedback to improve quality. The sooner, the more, the better.
3 replies 3 retweets 4 likes
Preprints!
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.