36 ms·

The idea that who a scientist is and what they stand for has any bearing on their work is a an affront to science itself. Let the papers speak for themselves; t

The idea that who a scientist is and what they stand for has any bearing on their work is a an affront to science itself. Let the papers speak for themselves; the authors need not even be mentioned.

gpm 6y ago
This just isn't how science work. Papers don't stand on their own because it takes far too long for even a subject matter expert to evaluate one paper, and that's even assuming that the paper was written honestly and without fudging the results. Science works on reputation. That reputation is most evident in the form of peer review where trusted members of the community review papers and decide which ones are good enough to get published. It also works behind the scenes in people finding out what papers to read by word of mouth, and people setting there prior on how trustworthy it is by who the authors are. Reputation is built partially (largely even) on being able to reliably publish true and verifiable results, and doing this without ever playing any politics will quickly build a reputation (meanwhile building a reputation by playing politics is next to impossible), but it's still reputation based.
- waterhouse 6y ago
  You could rely on the reputation of the reviewers, while concealing the identity of the authors from everyone. That may be what Invictus0 was suggesting, and it does sound workable. It raises one question—"How do we get the first reputable scientist to bother reviewing Mr. Anon's paper?" But as long as there wasn't a huge problem of outright spam, or of crackpot submissions that eat up too much time... or if serious submitters had to offer a monetary bounty (on the order of $100-$500) for the first or the first few reviewers, or if the bounty was more like a "security deposit" which would be given back if the paper was confirmed to be neither spam nor crackpot... There seem to be multiple plausible options.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Building a reputation by playing politics is next to impossible? What experience do you have in academia? There's plenty of politics in academia.
  - gpm 6y ago
    There's plenty of politics, but you still need results... politics alone is not sufficient.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      No, you don't: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

The idea that who a scientist is and what they stand for has any bearing on their work is a an affront to science itself. Let the papers speak for themselves; the authors need not even be mentioned.

gpm 6y ago

This just isn't how science work. Papers don't stand on their own because it takes far too long for even a subject matter expert to evaluate one paper, and that's even assuming that the paper was written honestly and without fudging the results. Science works on reputation. That reputation is most evident in the form of peer review where trusted members of the community review papers and decide which ones are good enough to get published. It also works behind the scenes in people finding out what papers to read by word of mouth, and people setting there prior on how trustworthy it is by who the authors are. Reputation is built partially (largely even) on being able to reliably publish true and verifiable results, and doing this without ever playing any politics will quickly build a reputation (meanwhile building a reputation by playing politics is next to impossible), but it's still reputation based.

waterhouse 6y ago
You could rely on the reputation of the reviewers, while concealing the identity of the authors from everyone. That may be what Invictus0 was suggesting, and it does sound workable. It raises one question—"How do we get the first reputable scientist to bother reviewing Mr. Anon's paper?" But as long as there wasn't a huge problem of outright spam, or of crackpot submissions that eat up too much time... or if serious submitters had to offer a monetary bounty (on the order of $100-$500) for the first or the first few reviewers, or if the bounty was more like a "security deposit" which would be given back if the paper was confirmed to be neither spam nor crackpot... There seem to be multiple plausible options.
chrisco255 6y ago
Building a reputation by playing politics is next to impossible? What experience do you have in academia? There's plenty of politics in academia.
- gpm 6y ago
  There's plenty of politics, but you still need results... politics alone is not sufficient.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    No, you don't: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis