4 ms·
The system as it is requires experts to review - peer review isn't "let any random person review" so I'm not sure leveraging the Internet in the traditional sen
by achileas 9y ago
The system as it is requires experts to review - peer review isn't "let any random person review" so I'm not sure leveraging the Internet in the traditional sense is the way to go. There are scientist social networks, but they don't have a lot of traction, and there's something to be said for the refereed process that exists.
Both knowledge extraction and signaling paper quality are fascinating, hard problems in modern science. I wish I had answers beyond criticism of the current system, but it might be a problem for people far smarter than I.
- cnees 9y agoSupposing one of the scientist social networks implemented the refereed peer review process for some or all papers they host, funding it with ad revenue, APCs, and/or freemium instead of charging universities and readers, what more could they do to improve the system? Better post-publication review/redaction/amnendment for work we don’t realize is wrong until much later? A rating system?