4 ms·
Explainers-first shouldn't be fired if they make up a small percentage, because they do a wonderful job without the bulk of resources. I'm not sure if explaine
by gallegojaime 6y ago
Explainers-first shouldn't be fired if they make up a small percentage, because they do a wonderful job without the bulk of resources.
I'm not sure if explainers-first are the minority, though. After all, it's much easier to review than to create. And we do want new research.
- StandardFuture 6y agoFirstly, let's not fall for a false dichotomy. There is likely a simple equilibrium of review and creativity that must be maintained for an optimally healthy scientific community. Obviously, the old style of numerous-journals + publish-or-perish mentality was unhealthy implementations of a scientific system. But, I would move away from papers entirely. They hold no redeeming values over alternatives like a git repository published publicly with an "issues" forum e.g., GitHub, etc. This needs to absolutely become the new standard, and we need to get rid of papers and journals, both physically and digitally, in their entirety. They have zero redeeming factors at this point in time except to boost the ego of the published. Quality control can easily be decentralized and available to everyone using something like GitHub. We know this because that is literally what the security and trust of open-source software is predicated on: putting everything in the open.