4 ms·

Nice! I think adding upvoting HN-style would help with the sorting. Edit: And HN-style comments might make it easier to discuss the papers.

fsh 7y ago
I think that a reddit/hn-style voting system is the absolute opposite of what you want to have for scientific publications. These systems tend to enforce a strong hive-mind, where only the most popular posts and opinions are visible and anything else gets downvoted into oblivion.
- tandav 7y ago
  I see no reason why comments can be bad
- leetcrew 7y ago
  don't citations already function like a voting system (albeit with no downvotes)? a paper with zero citations will be ignored just as surely as a comment in a large thread with zero votes.
AshamedCaptain 7y ago
Because democratic research is certainly going to do wonders in an era where the equipment and/or resources to reproduce any of the claims of these papers is way inaccessible to the average voter. I'd put my finger that even random sorting would bring more value.
Vinnl 7y ago
It's not exactly that, but with Plaudit [1] you're able to see which academics have read it and considered it worthwhile enough to endorse. Ideally bioRxiv/medRxiv would integrate it natively like several other preprint servers have done (e.g. [2]), but for now you'll need an extension though. (Disclosure: I'm a volunteer working on Plaudit.) [1] https://plaudit.pub/extension/ https://plaudit.pub/extension/ [2] https://psyarxiv.com/y38m9/ https://psyarxiv.com/y38m9/
MaxBarraclough 7y ago
How would that work? Would random people be able to vote on which research papers have the most merit? Only people with relevant doctorates? Another commenter mentioned a projected call Plaudit, which seems to use the 'ORCiD' system to decide who is worth taking seriously. [0] Can anyone explain how that really works? [0] https://plaudit.pub/#concept https://plaudit.pub/#concept

fsh 7y ago

I think that a reddit/hn-style voting system is the absolute opposite of what you want to have for scientific publications. These systems tend to enforce a strong hive-mind, where only the most popular posts and opinions are visible and anything else gets downvoted into oblivion.

tandav 7y ago
I see no reason why comments can be bad
leetcrew 7y ago
don't citations already function like a voting system (albeit with no downvotes)? a paper with zero citations will be ignored just as surely as a comment in a large thread with zero votes.

AshamedCaptain 7y ago

Because democratic research is certainly going to do wonders in an era where the equipment and/or resources to reproduce any of the claims of these papers is way inaccessible to the average voter. I'd put my finger that even random sorting would bring more value.

Vinnl 7y ago

It's not exactly that, but with Plaudit [1] you're able to see which academics have read it and considered it worthwhile enough to endorse. Ideally bioRxiv/medRxiv would integrate it natively like several other preprint servers have done (e.g. [2]), but for now you'll need an extension though. (Disclosure: I'm a volunteer working on Plaudit.) [1] https://plaudit.pub/extension/ https://plaudit.pub/extension/ [2] https://psyarxiv.com/y38m9/ https://psyarxiv.com/y38m9/

MaxBarraclough 7y ago

How would that work? Would random people be able to vote on which research papers have the most merit? Only people with relevant doctorates? Another commenter mentioned a projected call Plaudit, which seems to use the 'ORCiD' system to decide who is worth taking seriously. [0] Can anyone explain how that really works? [0] https://plaudit.pub/#concept https://plaudit.pub/#concept