4 ms·

If you look at arxiv though, the result has been the proliferation of a ton of really low quality, garbage papers. I wonder if a you could crowdsource the revi

If you look at arxiv though, the result has been the proliferation of a ton of really low quality, garbage papers. I wonder if a you could crowdsource the review with voting and discussion a la stack exchange style. That might actually be a good solution, particularly if you have to get vetted as being knowledgeable and constructive in order to vote.

comicjk 7y ago
I use a site called "ArXiv Sanity Preserver" - it's mainly for machine learning papers based on its current audience, but it provides pretty useful filtering based on user reviews. In any case, you can still estimate the quality of a paper with a minute of research into the authors. This is a good idea even if it's in a journal.
selimthegrim 7y ago
I believe there’s a site called scirate
ac29 7y ago
Open access doesn't necessarily imply free and not peer reviewed like arxiv. There are plenty of good, peer-reviewed journals that are open access - they are certainly not free though ($1-2k when I was publishing several years ago).
- oefrha 7y ago
  There are also peer-reviewed “arXiv overlay journals” that are very cheap to run and consequently cheap for authors. For instance, Timothy Gowers (Fields medalist, prominent figure in the movement against big publishers like Elsevier) announced[1] another one of these last week: > I am excited by the business model of the journal, which is that its very small running costs (like Discrete Analysis, it uses the Scholastica platform, which charges $10 per submission, as well as a fixed annual charge of $250, and there are a few other costs such as archiving articles with CLOCKSS and having DOIs)... [1] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/advances-in-combinatorics-fully-launched/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/advances-in-combinat...
knzhou 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with ArXiv. There's a lot of bad stuff on there, but the overall quality there is higher than the average published work, which is dominated by the many many low-tier journals out there.

comicjk 7y ago

I use a site called "ArXiv Sanity Preserver" - it's mainly for machine learning papers based on its current audience, but it provides pretty useful filtering based on user reviews. In any case, you can still estimate the quality of a paper with a minute of research into the authors. This is a good idea even if it's in a journal.

selimthegrim 7y ago

I believe there’s a site called scirate

ac29 7y ago

Open access doesn't necessarily imply free and not peer reviewed like arxiv. There are plenty of good, peer-reviewed journals that are open access - they are certainly not free though ($1-2k when I was publishing several years ago).

oefrha 7y ago
There are also peer-reviewed “arXiv overlay journals” that are very cheap to run and consequently cheap for authors. For instance, Timothy Gowers (Fields medalist, prominent figure in the movement against big publishers like Elsevier) announced[1] another one of these last week: > I am excited by the business model of the journal, which is that its very small running costs (like Discrete Analysis, it uses the Scholastica platform, which charges $10 per submission, as well as a fixed annual charge of $250, and there are a few other costs such as archiving articles with CLOCKSS and having DOIs)... [1] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/advances-in-combinatorics-fully-launched/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2019/10/30/advances-in-combinat...

knzhou 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with ArXiv. There's a lot of bad stuff on there, but the overall quality there is higher than the average published work, which is dominated by the many many low-tier journals out there.