3 ms·
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 Simil
by 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 agoHe 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 agoThat'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 agoI'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.