4 ms·
> instead of asking whether an effect is null or not, we should ask how big the effect is likely to be given the data. However, at the end of the day, editors
by piotrkaminski 8y ago
> instead of asking whether an effect is null or not, we should ask how big the effect is likely to be given the data. However, at the end of the day, editors need to make an all-or-none decision about whether to publish a paper
Yet another way in which the traditional publishing structure actively harms science.
- Bromskloss 8y agoDo you have an alternative way of publishing in mind?
- piotrkaminski 8y agoMy criticism is not necessarily constructive. ;) But it's not too hard to imagine something along the lines of arXiv combined with a rating/commenting system not unlike HN itself, combined with a Facebook-ish algorithm for surfacing articles relevant to each reader. The devil is in the details, of course, but it shouldn't be hard to do better than the expensive, artificially constrained, and arbitrary system we're saddled with now. The real trick will be convincing entrenched academics to switch -- I'm still not convinced this is actually possible.