5 ms·
This is a good idea, but how were those experts and "best papers" chosen? It's a well known fact that for each research domain, there are a few 'competing' labs
by vmarsy 10y ago
This is a good idea, but how were those experts and "best papers" chosen?
It's a well known fact that for each research domain, there are a few 'competing' labs. How can we be sure the experts aren't biased and decide to promote their papers to increase their visibility?
What would be cool is some sort of Hackernews style ranking per research domain, with voting ring detection, the only voters would be "recognized experts" (from academia or industry) with enough karma in their respective domain.
- chrisseaton 10y agoAs it's just public engagement, I don't see that it's a critical problem that the papers are perfectly representative of the best work. It's not for tenure. You could go crazy setting up some kind of voting system, or you could just get on with it and get some widely respected people to pick some papers, which is what they've done here.
- kabouseng 10y agoWe already have that, it's called citations...
- deadgrey19 10y agoCitations give a ranking of how often work is mentioned, but not how valuable the work is. For example " Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children" , otherwise known as "Vaccines Cause Autism" has (according to google scholar) over 2000 citations, but is known to be wrong and based on bad science.