maybe citations are not the best impact metric, given many people cite without reading the content.
Peer review is increasingly obsolete: - The real archival publication is on arXiv. - The most scalable interest matchers are algorithms. - The best critics are interested readers. - The best impact metric is # citations, not # refereed pubs.
-
-
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Define a new methodology and people will find a way to abuse it.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I have seen a tutorial on PCA published about 10 years ago with 4000+ citations when I could get more accurate spectral theory-based introduction from decades old lecture notes with zero citation.
-
Exactly. Number of citations is not the best measure of impact. Although, that does make me wonder what the best measure is.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
The main problem with peer review in AI is that reviewers don't have enough time to do it well (especially given the volume of papers and that we work for free).
-
That, and also: I need a month to verify a purely mathematical paper, but I can review 2~3 papers on applied work in a day.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Perhaps crowdsourcing could work: reduce the review form to say 5 factors that people rate by clicking buttons on arxiv. ?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Not to mention that arXiv is 100% free.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.