3 ms·

If you think peer-reviewing is slow then it's probably because you don't get the PEER part of the reviewing process. The PEERS are simply colleagues who have th

by kensai 10y ago

If you think peer-reviewing is slow then it's probably because you don't get the PEER part of the reviewing process. The PEERS are simply colleagues who have their own lives, priorities, and research. They don't stop what they are doing to review your wife's papers. And please, I see what's happening here: I have been portrayed as the "traditional journal apologist" although it's definitely what I wanted here. I simply wanted to express my doubts that pre-printing is the answer to it all. Anyway, is there a study that shows how many pre-printed articles in ML have been retracted or refuted so far? Until this is done, and shown as small as in peer-reviewed journals, keep a small basket.

IanCal 10y ago
> If you think peer-reviewing is slow then it's probably because you don't get the PEER part of the reviewing process. I understand the process fully. It doesn't make it fast, nor does it make it a necessary cost to pay. Delaying access to content for several years does not solve a problem. A not-insignificant time was spent bouncing between people to sort out who was paying for the costs, then there is also a delay between acceptance and publication. This now averages just a month in pubmed, but papers can bounce around this point for a lot longer. I am not arguing for pre-prints to replace traditional publishing, but the speed of spreading information is undeniably faster, and that's what started this whole chain of comments. > Anyway, is there a study that shows how many pre-printed articles in ML have been retracted or refuted so far? Until this is done, and shown as small as in peer-reviewed journals, keep a small basket. I don't get the phrase "keep a small basket", but no I've not seen this. The point is simply that PEERS (if we need to shout the word) can in many cases replicate the work and assess the results much more quickly than the traditional review & edit process. I picked the field because I see people re-implement work described in the papers very quickly, or the original authors share the trained models and code. I'd also caution against using "retracted" papers as a measure, some journals charge for a retraction.
- kensai 10y ago
  "I understand the process fully. It doesn't make it fast, nor does it make it a necessary cost to pay. Delaying access to content for several years does not solve a problem. A not-insignificant time was spent bouncing between people to sort out who was paying for the costs, then there is also a delay between acceptance and publication. This now averages just a month in pubmed, but papers can bounce around this point for a lot longer." You don't understand a thing and that was the proof of it, at least for me. The process of peers evaluating a paper takes a lot of time because it cannot be automated and is serious, especially for the better journals. Of course bouncing people (referees) is part of the process, to find the better and/or most available one. Of course you can cut corners and pre-print, especially not having your paper (peer) reviewed, potentially fraught with errors and other inaccuracies. Problem is, not all sciences are like computer science where the proof could be algorithmically verified quickly. Publishing bullshit in biology, for example, may mean others losing two-three years trying to replicate your bullshit pre-printed results. "I am not arguing for pre-prints to replace traditional publishing, but the speed of spreading information is undeniably faster, and that's what started this whole chain of comments." Hey, I was not arguing traditional publishing is inherently better than pre-prints, but still got downvoted. "I don't get the phrase "keep a small basket", but no I've not seen this. The point is simply that PEERS (if we need to shout the word) can in many cases replicate the work and assess the results much more quickly than the traditional review & edit process. I picked the field because I see people re-implement work described in the papers very quickly, or the original authors share the trained models and code." Pre-printing might be the case in fields like CS and its subfields where verification is a very quick thing, but totally unsuitable in fields such as biology or medicine. The PEERS in the latter need also more time, given the complexity of the experimental setups. "I'd also caution against using "retracted" papers as a measure, some journals charge for a retraction." Oh trust me, if you publish publish to a good journal such a Nature or Science they find out (say bogus experiments), they will happily retract your paper. Happened with certain Korean stem cell researchers in the past.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    > You don't understand a thing and that was the proof of it, at least for me. The process of peers evaluating a paper takes a lot of time because it cannot be automated and is serious, especially for the better journals. Of course bouncing people (referees) is part of the process, to find the better and/or most available one. The time of the actual reviewing does not alter either of the two other time sinks that I posted. The median post acceptance to publication time for the journal of clinical neuroscience is over three months, and other journals head over a year. [0] > Of course you can cut corners and pre-print, Preprints are not an alternative to publication. They are something you can do before publication. Hence the name. > Pre-printing might be the case in fields like CS and its subfields where verification is a very quick thing, but totally unsuitable in fields such as biology or medicine There is absolutely nothing unsuitable about releasing your work early in any field. There is a problem in assuming un-vetted work is vetted, but preprints don't make any claim to have been vetted. 0 http://www.nature.com/news/long-wait-for-publication-plagues-many-journals-1.17901 http://www.nature.com/news/long-wait-for-publication-plagues...

by kensai 10y ago

IanCal 10y ago

> If you think peer-reviewing is slow then it's probably because you don't get the PEER part of the reviewing process. I understand the process fully. It doesn't make it fast, nor does it make it a necessary cost to pay. Delaying access to content for several years does not solve a problem. A not-insignificant time was spent bouncing between people to sort out who was paying for the costs, then there is also a delay between acceptance and publication. This now averages just a month in pubmed, but papers can bounce around this point for a lot longer. I am not arguing for pre-prints to replace traditional publishing, but the speed of spreading information is undeniably faster, and that's what started this whole chain of comments. > Anyway, is there a study that shows how many pre-printed articles in ML have been retracted or refuted so far? Until this is done, and shown as small as in peer-reviewed journals, keep a small basket. I don't get the phrase "keep a small basket", but no I've not seen this. The point is simply that PEERS (if we need to shout the word) can in many cases replicate the work and assess the results much more quickly than the traditional review & edit process. I picked the field because I see people re-implement work described in the papers very quickly, or the original authors share the trained models and code. I'd also caution against using "retracted" papers as a measure, some journals charge for a retraction.

kensai 10y ago
"I understand the process fully. It doesn't make it fast, nor does it make it a necessary cost to pay. Delaying access to content for several years does not solve a problem. A not-insignificant time was spent bouncing between people to sort out who was paying for the costs, then there is also a delay between acceptance and publication. This now averages just a month in pubmed, but papers can bounce around this point for a lot longer." You don't understand a thing and that was the proof of it, at least for me. The process of peers evaluating a paper takes a lot of time because it cannot be automated and is serious, especially for the better journals. Of course bouncing people (referees) is part of the process, to find the better and/or most available one. Of course you can cut corners and pre-print, especially not having your paper (peer) reviewed, potentially fraught with errors and other inaccuracies. Problem is, not all sciences are like computer science where the proof could be algorithmically verified quickly. Publishing bullshit in biology, for example, may mean others losing two-three years trying to replicate your bullshit pre-printed results. "I am not arguing for pre-prints to replace traditional publishing, but the speed of spreading information is undeniably faster, and that's what started this whole chain of comments." Hey, I was not arguing traditional publishing is inherently better than pre-prints, but still got downvoted. "I don't get the phrase "keep a small basket", but no I've not seen this. The point is simply that PEERS (if we need to shout the word) can in many cases replicate the work and assess the results much more quickly than the traditional review & edit process. I picked the field because I see people re-implement work described in the papers very quickly, or the original authors share the trained models and code." Pre-printing might be the case in fields like CS and its subfields where verification is a very quick thing, but totally unsuitable in fields such as biology or medicine. The PEERS in the latter need also more time, given the complexity of the experimental setups. "I'd also caution against using "retracted" papers as a measure, some journals charge for a retraction." Oh trust me, if you publish publish to a good journal such a Nature or Science they find out (say bogus experiments), they will happily retract your paper. Happened with certain Korean stem cell researchers in the past.
- IanCal 10y ago
  > You don't understand a thing and that was the proof of it, at least for me. The process of peers evaluating a paper takes a lot of time because it cannot be automated and is serious, especially for the better journals. Of course bouncing people (referees) is part of the process, to find the better and/or most available one. The time of the actual reviewing does not alter either of the two other time sinks that I posted. The median post acceptance to publication time for the journal of clinical neuroscience is over three months, and other journals head over a year. [0] > Of course you can cut corners and pre-print, Preprints are not an alternative to publication. They are something you can do before publication. Hence the name. > Pre-printing might be the case in fields like CS and its subfields where verification is a very quick thing, but totally unsuitable in fields such as biology or medicine There is absolutely nothing unsuitable about releasing your work early in any field. There is a problem in assuming un-vetted work is vetted, but preprints don't make any claim to have been vetted. 0 http://www.nature.com/news/long-wait-for-publication-plagues-many-journals-1.17901 http://www.nature.com/news/long-wait-for-publication-plagues...