4 ms·

Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science). Tell your colleagues about it if you normally hold seminars before pu

by chr1 7y ago

Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science). Tell your colleagues about it if you normally hold seminars before publishing papers, or post to mailing list. As interested people read your paper they will post comments, open issues, or star your repository. If it gets many stars Nature will include a link to it in their monthly list of important works, which would help even more people to find your repository.

cozzyd 7y ago
So that Nature will be full of papers from researchers who hire the most clickfarmers to star their work?
- chr1 7y ago
  Nature would not assign the same value to every star. Star from someone who works in a university and has large impact factor in the related field will have much higher value than a star from newly created account without any published work.
  - rusticpenn 7y ago
    That is then a circular problem. Most people who have high impact right now, know how to play the publishing game.
meej 7y ago
> Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science). How does one publish on Sci-Hub? I would suggest sites like https://zenodo.org/ https://zenodo.org/ or https://osf.io/ https://osf.io/ for self-publishing research products. Or one's own institution's repository, if they have one (many do, see http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/ http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/).
- matwood 7y ago
  Publish the paper and put the protocols on something like https://www.protocols.io https://www.protocols.io so the results can be reproduced.
jononor 7y ago
There are no repositories or publishing functions on sci-hub. It is only a kind of proxy for already published works.
- chr1 7y ago
  I did not mean the existing scihub site, but simply something that would be github for science. It seemed to me amusing to reference scihub in the name, but unfortunately looks like it is confusing, and diverts attention from the content of my comment, which is that publishing paper should be similar to publishing a repository on github, and reviewing should be like reviewing pull requests.
  - beojan 7y ago
    That sounds like arXiv.
    - chr1 7y ago
      arXiv doesn't provide a way to review, comment, or rate papers which is needed to replace journals by a better process.
brazzy 7y ago
Turn science into an unmitigated popularity contest, how could that possibly go wrong?!?
- chr1 7y ago
  Stack overflow is a "popularity contest" and nothing has gone wrong with it so far, and science have always been popularity contest, i am just suggesting to give it better tools to measure the popularity.

by chr1 7y ago

cozzyd 7y ago

So that Nature will be full of papers from researchers who hire the most clickfarmers to star their work?

chr1 7y ago
Nature would not assign the same value to every star. Star from someone who works in a university and has large impact factor in the related field will have much higher value than a star from newly created account without any published work.
- rusticpenn 7y ago
  That is then a circular problem. Most people who have high impact right now, know how to play the publishing game.

meej 7y ago

> Publish your article with accompanying data and programs on sci-hub (github for science). How does one publish on Sci-Hub? I would suggest sites like https://zenodo.org/ https://zenodo.org/ or https://osf.io/ https://osf.io/ for self-publishing research products. Or one's own institution's repository, if they have one (many do, see http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/ http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/).

matwood 7y ago
Publish the paper and put the protocols on something like https://www.protocols.io https://www.protocols.io so the results can be reproduced.

jononor 7y ago

There are no repositories or publishing functions on sci-hub. It is only a kind of proxy for already published works.

chr1 7y ago
I did not mean the existing scihub site, but simply something that would be github for science. It seemed to me amusing to reference scihub in the name, but unfortunately looks like it is confusing, and diverts attention from the content of my comment, which is that publishing paper should be similar to publishing a repository on github, and reviewing should be like reviewing pull requests.
- beojan 7y ago
  That sounds like arXiv.
  - chr1 7y ago
    arXiv doesn't provide a way to review, comment, or rate papers which is needed to replace journals by a better process.

brazzy 7y ago

Turn science into an unmitigated popularity contest, how could that possibly go wrong?!?

chr1 7y ago
Stack overflow is a "popularity contest" and nothing has gone wrong with it so far, and science have always been popularity contest, i am just suggesting to give it better tools to measure the popularity.