5 ms·

This is, in principle, no different than the fact that you have to log in to Github to create issues or add comments. What makes it different is that as a prof

This is, in principle, no different than the fact that you have to log in to Github to create issues or add comments. What makes it different is that as a profession, we have decided that Github is nice, good, and ubiquitous. Unfortunately, the portals that he's describing are crappy, bad, and balkanized.

maaaats 10y ago
It would be similar to Github if you out of the blue emailed someone asking them to review your code for free. But to do so they would have to sign up for SimilarToGitHubX. And when they have done so, they just wait a few hours while you add them to your private repo.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  He mentions reviewing papers and grant proposals, which are part of your professional obligations if you're a professor. You're not obliged to do so for any particular journal, but you're absolutely expected to do some, and "cold calling" people is normal. It would be as if part of your job required code reviewing open source projects in your area of expertise, even where you hadn't previously contributed.
  - Spivak 10y ago
    That's not really the issue, the issue is on who's terms must this review take place and there's a strong case to be made that it should be the professor's.
    - hyperpape 10y ago
      I'd argue that's only true if the system can't be better than emailing papers around. I think Github/Gitlab/Bitbucket have shown us that you can do better than emailing patches. I think the academic world could do better than just emailing crap (the arXiv has already done this, but not for full on peer-review). It's just that the current tools are not good. I think Aaronson is mostly right to tell off these journals. However, I think the idea of tools that improve peer review is a good one.
hk__2 10y ago
You have to log in to GitHub in order to create issues on GitHub. But that doesn’t mean you must have a GitHub account to report issues to a project hosted on it. Emailing the author with an issue report (and a patch) works as well.
- mcguire 10y ago
  You would have to use it if you wanted to keep the reviews/issues anonymous.
  - hk__2 10y ago
    Can’t you use somerandomemailaddress@gmail.com?
- dasyatidprime 10y ago
  This can get you flamed, and in a way rightfully so, because you just made the author do more work for seemingly no reason. If no one else regularly has a problem integrating, being That One Person https://xkcd.com/1782/ https://xkcd.com/1782/ is a great way to declare that you're hard to work with. Then you find that GitHub forbids multiple identity contexts for free accounts in their terms of service ("One person or legal entity may maintain no more than one free account"), so if multiple people want you to do things on GitHub but you don't want to mix the activities together, your options are to pay for a monthly subscription (possibly forever) or break the rules and hope your ability to continue participating doesn't suddenly get taken away if they catch you. Centralization of interaction by type creates social paradoxes like this.
brudgers 10y ago
I don't have to log into Github to read source code or to curl a repository, at least not yet. And I see the author's situation as more akin as having to create logins to "Ultimategitrepository.tv" and "Gitmaster4u.com" etc. in order to access the material.
- hyperpape 10y ago
  Half of what you're saying is definitely covered by my comment ("balkanized"). As for the other half, they're asking him to comment, so fully anonymous access simply doesn't work. The fact that Github is publicly viewable would also be part of what's nice about it, thought I obviously wasn't explicit about that.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    >they're asking him to comment, so fully anonymous access simply doesn't work. How so? Just give a link with the equivalent of Google Analytic's utm_source query parameter. Or a link that creates/uses an account that they internally tag as "this is Scott Aaronson". They have his name, his email address, and can convince him to click a link. That should be enough.

maaaats 10y ago

It would be similar to Github if you out of the blue emailed someone asking them to review your code for free. But to do so they would have to sign up for SimilarToGitHubX. And when they have done so, they just wait a few hours while you add them to your private repo.

hyperpape 10y ago
He mentions reviewing papers and grant proposals, which are part of your professional obligations if you're a professor. You're not obliged to do so for any particular journal, but you're absolutely expected to do some, and "cold calling" people is normal. It would be as if part of your job required code reviewing open source projects in your area of expertise, even where you hadn't previously contributed.
- Spivak 10y ago
  That's not really the issue, the issue is on who's terms must this review take place and there's a strong case to be made that it should be the professor's.
  - hyperpape 10y ago
    I'd argue that's only true if the system can't be better than emailing papers around. I think Github/Gitlab/Bitbucket have shown us that you can do better than emailing patches. I think the academic world could do better than just emailing crap (the arXiv has already done this, but not for full on peer-review). It's just that the current tools are not good. I think Aaronson is mostly right to tell off these journals. However, I think the idea of tools that improve peer review is a good one.

hk__2 10y ago

You have to log in to GitHub in order to create issues on GitHub. But that doesn’t mean you must have a GitHub account to report issues to a project hosted on it. Emailing the author with an issue report (and a patch) works as well.

mcguire 10y ago
You would have to use it if you wanted to keep the reviews/issues anonymous.
- hk__2 10y ago
  Can’t you use somerandomemailaddress@gmail.com?
dasyatidprime 10y ago
This can get you flamed, and in a way rightfully so, because you just made the author do more work for seemingly no reason. If no one else regularly has a problem integrating, being That One Person https://xkcd.com/1782/ https://xkcd.com/1782/ is a great way to declare that you're hard to work with. Then you find that GitHub forbids multiple identity contexts for free accounts in their terms of service ("One person or legal entity may maintain no more than one free account"), so if multiple people want you to do things on GitHub but you don't want to mix the activities together, your options are to pay for a monthly subscription (possibly forever) or break the rules and hope your ability to continue participating doesn't suddenly get taken away if they catch you. Centralization of interaction by type creates social paradoxes like this.

brudgers 10y ago

I don't have to log into Github to read source code or to curl a repository, at least not yet. And I see the author's situation as more akin as having to create logins to "Ultimategitrepository.tv" and "Gitmaster4u.com" etc. in order to access the material.

hyperpape 10y ago
Half of what you're saying is definitely covered by my comment ("balkanized"). As for the other half, they're asking him to comment, so fully anonymous access simply doesn't work. The fact that Github is publicly viewable would also be part of what's nice about it, thought I obviously wasn't explicit about that.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  >they're asking him to comment, so fully anonymous access simply doesn't work. How so? Just give a link with the equivalent of Google Analytic's utm_source query parameter. Or a link that creates/uses an account that they internally tag as "this is Scott Aaronson". They have his name, his email address, and can convince him to click a link. That should be enough.