3 ms·

I agree with the reviews from credentialed users. People should put their names on the arguments for or against a paper, and let others evaluate them in return

I agree with the reviews from credentialed users. People should put their names on the arguments for or against a paper, and let others evaluate them in return. I like pre-print services, and I wish they would go one step further and allow people to comment/critic the paper. This way, when you find a paper, you could see all associated thoughts and join the conversation. The really powerful idea behind pre-prints is that it would speed up academic publishing, by eliminating the ~6 month publication time. The only problem with pre-prints (currently) is they are not widely accepted for academic tenure. With academic publishing being a multi-billion dollar industry, I'm kind of surprised there are not more tech startups working on this issue.

EGreg 10y ago
So why not make a service for arxiv papers or any other source of resources and have experts critique them? Maybe there is already a good source of experts on Quora or something. Or start a new site where experts are invited.
- mcarlise 10y ago
  > So why not make a service for arxiv papers or any other source of resources and have experts critique them? Yeah I think this would be a great idea. If you had the capture ability of sci-hub with the invite ability of quora to get experts to critic papers. Then add on-top of that some simple blog features like top highlight, sharing, subscribe to citation links, and comment/discussion (that matches HN's no counter productive comments/etc). The large obstacle would be paywalls - like sci-hub; any attractive paper would be illegal to have on the service; if you simply pulled from pre-prints (arxiv; plos pre-print, etc..) you will probably lose academic disciplines that do not value these services (biology primarily comes to mind). On the other hand, CS would probably embrace it as a complement to their conference publishing culture.
  - EGreg 10y ago
    If someone wants to partner with me on this, I'd be happy to do it. We have the underlying platform for it already. Find me on http://qbix.com/about http://qbix.com/about (click to email me)

EGreg 10y ago

So why not make a service for arxiv papers or any other source of resources and have experts critique them? Maybe there is already a good source of experts on Quora or something. Or start a new site where experts are invited.

mcarlise 10y ago
> So why not make a service for arxiv papers or any other source of resources and have experts critique them? Yeah I think this would be a great idea. If you had the capture ability of sci-hub with the invite ability of quora to get experts to critic papers. Then add on-top of that some simple blog features like top highlight, sharing, subscribe to citation links, and comment/discussion (that matches HN's no counter productive comments/etc). The large obstacle would be paywalls - like sci-hub; any attractive paper would be illegal to have on the service; if you simply pulled from pre-prints (arxiv; plos pre-print, etc..) you will probably lose academic disciplines that do not value these services (biology primarily comes to mind). On the other hand, CS would probably embrace it as a complement to their conference publishing culture.
- EGreg 10y ago
  If someone wants to partner with me on this, I'd be happy to do it. We have the underlying platform for it already. Find me on http://qbix.com/about http://qbix.com/about (click to email me)