3 ms·
I agree with everything except that the I think the paper, and other papers in general, should be judged on their merits alone. The credibility of the authors s
by omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
I agree with everything except that the I think the paper, and other papers in general, should be judged on their merits alone. The credibility of the authors should not influence how the paper is judged.
- scoot_718 6y agoIf that's what you think, then enjoy reading the many thousands of papers published by shitty paper mill operations.
- matham 6y agoYou seem to be conflating the problem of weak or no pear review (i.e. the reason why paper-mill publications are shitty), with the problem of judging a paper by the author's name and not purely by its content (i.e. what the OP proposed).
- danielheath 6y agoThere is more published every second than you can read/watch in a week, and this asymmetry is accelerating. Credibility is one heuristic that let’s us figure out what might be worth investing time into, since your answer cannot be “everything”.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoDefinitely. Using credibility, or any other metric, to determine what to review is fine. Using credibility as part of the review itself is not something I agree with. With respect to publishing, there is a significant volume of work, and we should be able to keep up with it long as people review as much as they publish.