4 ms·
Open publishing and commenting would be a good start---having a dialog, like is done at conferences. Older academic journal articles (pre 1900) read much more l
by smaddox 8y ago
Open publishing and commenting would be a good start---having a dialog, like is done at conferences. Older academic journal articles (pre 1900) read much more like discussions than like the hundred dollar word vomits of modern academic publishing. The broken incentives are at the core of this rotten fruit, though. Just making journals open isn't enough.
- avip 8y agoWe have (almost) open publishing and open commenting. Did that improve anything?
- raziel2701 8y agoThere's open commenting? I've never seen the back and forth of the review process be published. It should be published.
- _delirium 8y agoSome machine learning conferences use openreview.net for this.
- westurner 8y agohttps://hypothes.is https://hypothes.is supports threaded comments on anything with a URI; including PDFs and specific sentences or figures thereof. All you have to do is register an account and install the browser extension or include the JS in the HTML. It's based on open standards and an open platform. W3C Web Annotations: http://w3.org/annotation http://w3.org/annotation About Hypothesis: https://web.hypothes.is/about/ https://web.hypothes.is/about/
- moultano 8y agoI think so. I've followed the back and forth on a few papers on openreview.net and I found the comments nearly as interesting and informative as the paper they were commenting on. There are a lot of things that only exist as suspicions and intuitions inside of a researcher's head, and that sort of information is much more likely to come out in a back and forth reviewing a paper than in actual published literature.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Fomite 8y agoI have been distinctly unimpressed with open peer review, and given it's antithetical to something I actually think does concretely have benefit (double-blind peer review) I've gotten rather curmudgeonly about it as a fix.