3 ms·
I can tell you that this system would make many things even worse. The problem is that so much gets published so it's very hard to follow everything, so peer re
by cycomanic 6y ago
I can tell you that this system would make many things even worse. The problem is that so much gets published so it's very hard to follow everything, so peer review is a good first filter to reduce numbers.
If we move to a system where everyone just publishes on e.g. Arxiv what happens is that people will just follow certain researchers that they deem good (you can already see that happening in some fields). So you have cabals developing who only read each others articles and it becomes very hard for new researchers to break into.
- pdonis 6y ago> peer review is a good first filter to reduce numbers This is only true if (a) it filters properly, and (b) scientists actually pay attention to what it filters. I'm not sure either of those is actually true now (though they might have been true in the past). > So you have cabals developing who only read each others articles and it becomes very hard for new researchers to break into If "cabals" that are hard to break into are an issue, it's not because of lack of peer review; it's because governments are now pretty much the sole source of funding for scientific research, so there is stiff competition for grants and many people will do whatever it takes to elbow out others, including forming cabals. The way to fix that is to not have governments be the sole (or even the primary) source of funds for scientific research.
- chrisco255 6y agoWhy not a system somewhat like GitHub? Anyone can publish any code they like on GitHub and anyone can submit an issue. It also has a built in reputation system.
- itronitron 6y agoI disagree. A better approach would be to formalize the contributions made in a paper so that people can more effectively filter down to their needs.