5 ms·

> I wish more companies supported people like Stripe does for Aphyr. Research is so valuable, but there's so little incentive to be in academia. If you're talk

by yid 11y ago

> I wish more companies supported people like Stripe does for Aphyr. Research is so valuable, but there's so little incentive to be in academia. If you're talking about incentives, don't forget that Kyle's research is some of the most commercially useful research out there at the moment, and Kyle is also skilled at implementing his ideas (a rare combination among researchers). I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised that he's putting so much effort into these blog posts rather than writing a string of journal papers.

sanderjd 11y ago
I know zero about academia – could he also publish this work in a string of journal papers and reap the rewards (whatever they are) of both a successful and widely useful blog series and more formal academic recognition?
- yid 11y ago
  Absolutely. But I doubt he'd find as much value for his time by writing journal papers at the moment, given that Stripe will essentially pay him a decent salary to continue his open-access research. There's always time for a retrospective book :)
panic 11y ago
Is there a point to writing journal papers if you're not playing the academic publication / citation game? Web sites are easier to publish and have wider distribution than academic journals.
- Jweb_Guru 11y ago
  The point is to receive peer review from domain experts (including those in academia). But aphyr already gets that anyway :P
  - infamouscow 11y ago
    After spend an hour reading Retraction Watch it's absolutely clear to me that academic scientific publishing has nothing to do with verifying correctness and everything to do with politics. [1] [1]: http://retractionwatch.com/ http://retractionwatch.com/
    - Jweb_Guru 11y ago
      The idea that peer review has nothing to do with verifying correctness is extremely misguided (as would the idea be that politics don't enter into it at all). Or do you feel that the existence of retractions invalidates the entire scientific process?
      - infamouscow 11y ago
        There is no scientific process. If you spend some time looking at the posts you'll see that the reason for the retraction there has to do with skewing results to match the views of the those funding research and/or to sway opinion in a direction.
        Jweb_Guru 11y ago
        Retraction Watch itself has the title, "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process." So clearly they believe that there is such a thing as the scientific process. Retractions are an important part of it--science needs to be robust to mistakes.
  - Rapzid 11y ago
    But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Further, I'd say that with the tools being provided for free and the blog posts Kyle's findings are most likely peer reviewed... And copany reviewed... And product team reviewed..
    - Jweb_Guru 11y ago
      > But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Sure, I agree (well, I'd probably replace "much" with a less strong word, and skip the "damning", but that's just semantics). Plenty of studies haven't been demonstrated to be wrong, and plenty of others were wrong despite being correctly designed experiments (something both peer reviewers and the scientists performing the experiments could not have caught). Moreover, many flawed studies haven't been accepted by peer reviewers, which is in fact the purpose of peer review. The biggest problem with peer review is probably publication bias against negative results, without which I suspect most demonstrated scientific fraud wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean the whole process needs to be thrown out. > Further, I'd say that with the tools being provided for free and the blog posts Kyle's findings are most likely peer reviewed... And copany reviewed... And product team reviewed.. Yes, Kyle does (hell, he's been cited in academic papers). The average person publishing blog posts does not, though.

by yid 11y ago

sanderjd 11y ago

I know zero about academia – could he also publish this work in a string of journal papers and reap the rewards (whatever they are) of both a successful and widely useful blog series and more formal academic recognition?

yid 11y ago
Absolutely. But I doubt he'd find as much value for his time by writing journal papers at the moment, given that Stripe will essentially pay him a decent salary to continue his open-access research. There's always time for a retrospective book :)

panic 11y ago

Is there a point to writing journal papers if you're not playing the academic publication / citation game? Web sites are easier to publish and have wider distribution than academic journals.

Jweb_Guru 11y ago
The point is to receive peer review from domain experts (including those in academia). But aphyr already gets that anyway :P
- infamouscow 11y ago
  After spend an hour reading Retraction Watch it's absolutely clear to me that academic scientific publishing has nothing to do with verifying correctness and everything to do with politics. [1] [1]: http://retractionwatch.com/ http://retractionwatch.com/
  - Jweb_Guru 11y ago
    The idea that peer review has nothing to do with verifying correctness is extremely misguided (as would the idea be that politics don't enter into it at all). Or do you feel that the existence of retractions invalidates the entire scientific process?
    - infamouscow 11y ago
      There is no scientific process. If you spend some time looking at the posts you'll see that the reason for the retraction there has to do with skewing results to match the views of the those funding research and/or to sway opinion in a direction.
      - Jweb_Guru 11y ago
        Retraction Watch itself has the title, "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process." So clearly they believe that there is such a thing as the scientific process. Retractions are an important part of it--science needs to be robust to mistakes.
- Rapzid 11y ago
  But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Further, I'd say that with the tools being provided for free and the blog posts Kyle's findings are most likely peer reviewed... And copany reviewed... And product team reviewed..
  - Jweb_Guru 11y ago
    > But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Sure, I agree (well, I'd probably replace "much" with a less strong word, and skip the "damning", but that's just semantics). Plenty of studies haven't been demonstrated to be wrong, and plenty of others were wrong despite being correctly designed experiments (something both peer reviewers and the scientists performing the experiments could not have caught). Moreover, many flawed studies haven't been accepted by peer reviewers, which is in fact the purpose of peer review. The biggest problem with peer review is probably publication bias against negative results, without which I suspect most demonstrated scientific fraud wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean the whole process needs to be thrown out. > Further, I'd say that with the tools being provided for free and the blog posts Kyle's findings are most likely peer reviewed... And copany reviewed... And product team reviewed.. Yes, Kyle does (hell, he's been cited in academic papers). The average person publishing blog posts does not, though.