4 ms·

Peer-reviewing. A research that haven't been peer-reviewed is worth nothing in my opinion and it can't be achieved with open archives.

by luc13 6y ago

cinquemb 6y ago
Luckily not everyone feels this way, and may be willing to mail an author if they found some mistake in their open archived paper/data/document they read because they think it could be useful/interesting and the author may be willing to update it with all the relevant metadata acknowledging the edit. The more of academia that happens outside of well defined institutions, the better for the public.
- fock 6y ago
  but journals and peer-review enforce this. That's a good thing (though I agree that letting journals do this is stupid – arxiv is out there, why can't they sign up unis to make people review the things there.)
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    Yeah, but it comes with all the gate keeping, prestige laundering and grant hamster wheel dynamics. Works for some, but not all.
    - fock 6y ago
      if you do true double-blind reviews and don't do the thing, they do at the great CS conferences (e.g. chair is from FANG, 80% of papers are from FANG; chair passes everything from his FANG). Open science is great, doing the mixture of boasting over mediocre results (hey, we can classify 10 samples more correctly from MNIST) and outright faking stuff (which is also there) is a problem even with journals. It doesn't get better wirh Arxiv and all the details packed away in never published supporting information (happened to me sometimes now...) - of course you can ask and then with the SI realize: this is bullshit... Good peer review should weed this out.
      - cinquemb 6y ago
        I don't deny that "good" (people may have varying definitions of good, acceptable costs of obtaining sufficient good-ness, whether those costs are assumed to be burdened upon a individual or society unquestioningly, on whether such costs can be minimized and how such minimization might negatively affect those not directly integral to academic pursuits and more integral a current system of manifesting such at non minimized costs) peer review may weed these behaviors out more often than not (boasting over mediocre results, outright faking stuff, etc), but for me, I'm not too concerned because this stuff will happen no matter what to some degree (like you say `It doesn't get better wirh Arxiv`). We are only human. I'm more interested in making the _costs_ of publishing/disseminating/accessing research cheaper so that individuals/orgs/etc can bypass expensive institutions if they so choose, or even gain the ability to participate because they have no other realistic options now due to current costs of participation in the ecosystem (I personally have to deal with thousands of journals/conferences/orgs every week that use software I write at significantly cheaper costs than say systems MIT has at its disposal, that without such, their works would not be available to society [i've see domains i route for go down when they stopped paying their bills for a month or longer, and we had to redirect publications/data back out from domain so that it could still be available]). Any system that can drive down the costs for pursing academic interests for both the individual and society will eventually subvert those that came before, relegating them a hollow shell of the purpose they once served, if any aspect of a previous system manages to survive.

Peer-reviewing. A research that haven't been peer-reviewed is worth nothing in my opinion and it can't be achieved with open archives.

by luc13 6y ago

Peer-reviewing. A research that haven't been peer-reviewed is worth nothing in my opinion and it can't be achieved with open archives.

cinquemb 6y ago

Luckily not everyone feels this way, and may be willing to mail an author if they found some mistake in their open archived paper/data/document they read because they think it could be useful/interesting and the author may be willing to update it with all the relevant metadata acknowledging the edit. The more of academia that happens outside of well defined institutions, the better for the public.

fock 6y ago
but journals and peer-review enforce this. That's a good thing (though I agree that letting journals do this is stupid – arxiv is out there, why can't they sign up unis to make people review the things there.)
- cinquemb 6y ago
  Yeah, but it comes with all the gate keeping, prestige laundering and grant hamster wheel dynamics. Works for some, but not all.
  - fock 6y ago
    if you do true double-blind reviews and don't do the thing, they do at the great CS conferences (e.g. chair is from FANG, 80% of papers are from FANG; chair passes everything from his FANG). Open science is great, doing the mixture of boasting over mediocre results (hey, we can classify 10 samples more correctly from MNIST) and outright faking stuff (which is also there) is a problem even with journals. It doesn't get better wirh Arxiv and all the details packed away in never published supporting information (happened to me sometimes now...) - of course you can ask and then with the SI realize: this is bullshit... Good peer review should weed this out.
    - cinquemb 6y ago
      I don't deny that "good" (people may have varying definitions of good, acceptable costs of obtaining sufficient good-ness, whether those costs are assumed to be burdened upon a individual or society unquestioningly, on whether such costs can be minimized and how such minimization might negatively affect those not directly integral to academic pursuits and more integral a current system of manifesting such at non minimized costs) peer review may weed these behaviors out more often than not (boasting over mediocre results, outright faking stuff, etc), but for me, I'm not too concerned because this stuff will happen no matter what to some degree (like you say `It doesn't get better wirh Arxiv`). We are only human. I'm more interested in making the _costs_ of publishing/disseminating/accessing research cheaper so that individuals/orgs/etc can bypass expensive institutions if they so choose, or even gain the ability to participate because they have no other realistic options now due to current costs of participation in the ecosystem (I personally have to deal with thousands of journals/conferences/orgs every week that use software I write at significantly cheaper costs than say systems MIT has at its disposal, that without such, their works would not be available to society [i've see domains i route for go down when they stopped paying their bills for a month or longer, and we had to redirect publications/data back out from domain so that it could still be available]). Any system that can drive down the costs for pursing academic interests for both the individual and society will eventually subvert those that came before, relegating them a hollow shell of the purpose they once served, if any aspect of a previous system manages to survive.