3 ms·
a) Maybe just have Sci-Hub and/or ArXiv links? If you assume your audience is mostly professors, then they can get past paywalls and you can just link to a pay
by nix0n 10y ago
a) Maybe just have Sci-Hub and/or ArXiv links? If you assume your audience is mostly professors, then they can get past paywalls and you can just link to a paywalled source.
b) Nested subtopics, good search, and mergeable threads so you can enforce one thread per paper? Do papers have ISBN numbers, or some equivalent?
c) Most professors have verifiable .edu email addresses, but this is going to take human effort and you'd have to decide how much of the .edu world you want to allow in.
d) Start with a very specific code of conduct, accept the fact some will be pissed off, have at least one full-time paid moderator? This will be tough, maybe the hardest part.
e) Network effects will do this for you within networks (so each subfield of academia will eventually migrate to one site, but you might be able to attract e.g. most of math but biology could be on a competitor). I would worry about this least.
I think this would work best apart from a paper-hosting site. The human costs and hosting costs will become expensive and it's easier to collect ad money if you stay legal. You might even able able to host this on a university network as ArXiv is, but this would make moderation more difficult because you'd be accused of bias towards that university.
I think PHP-BB has all of the technical features you would actually need. The moderation would be the hardest part IMO.
- moyix 10y agoFor (b) – yes, papers generally get DOIs. I would love to have something like this. However I think that you may be overestimating the willingness of people to contribute high quality discussion about a paper. The people best able to offer expert critiques are the same people who have the least time to do so. The fact that the peer review system regularly manages to do so is something of a miracle, but that's because we've managed to get prestige and career advancement tied to membership on program committees and editorial boards. I think for something like this to work you'd need to think carefully about how to compensate reviewers. And I don't think that compensating them with money will work that well, since most academics care much more about career advancement and prestige than money (otherwise we'd be in industry...)