4 ms·
The yearly budget of arXiv is ~$1M. I don't see a reason why science couldn't flourish on a non-anonymous message board such as reddit or twitter in place of p
by azag0 9y ago
The yearly budget of arXiv is ~$1M.
I don't see a reason why science couldn't flourish on a non-anonymous message board such as reddit or twitter in place of peer review. This is all matter of momentum. And of fear of open criticism.
- sddfd 9y agoAnd a fear to introduce accountability for reviews: what if the review is technically wrong? With the anonymous system we have today, there are no wrong reviews.
- pfortuny 9y agoOuch, you would be amazed at the trickery involved in refereeing. Drop a couple of citations and you end up with a 90% probability of getting your desired reviewer... And many more.
- leemailll 9y agoI dare you when you use your real name to criticize a recent paper of top guru in field is total garbage and never has a moment worrying about subsequent funding application which the guru usually serves the reviewing board.
- grenoire 9y agoA professor of mine (of philosophy of economics and scientific methodology) was effectively banned from several major journals in his field for roughly ten years because he made an argument about labourers' stock ownership in a Marxist economist conference—and one of the audience members was an influential chairman in those journals. People seem to think that there is no politics in academia and science, and that everybody is automaton-rational people with no ulterior motives. Very, very wrong...