4 ms·
Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything. - Ranjit Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
by samplonius 11y ago
Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything.
- Ranjit Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra)
- Farnickal 11y agoNo that is downright stupid and perverse. It's better to disclose the information and debunk it if it is false. Also we're talking about pictures to prove this claim, so calm down, you passive-aggressive, sarcastic prick.
- anaphor 11y agoHave you ever heard of post-publication peer review?
- gcr 11y agoHave you ever heard of any reputable venue that does that?
- Joof 11y agoIt's cool; we can let a small, overworked group of people who may or may not actually be very knowledgeable in that subject peer review it first. Might as well keep the data private forever too because reproducing the work might show something different.
- Joof 11y agoI was up too late and grumpy, but the peer review process (while necessary) does prevent good papers from being published in a reasonable time frame. And acceptance is closer to random than you might expect. Here's a review of the NIPs acceptance process. http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html Stuff like arXiv is in theory very good for the actual process of science, but so is having free, accessible journals and those don't necessarily exist in every field.