3 ms·

One of solutions is to let individuals choose who to trust. I can pick to not trust the certain person, or certain publication or conference, and have my person

One of solutions is to let individuals choose who to trust. I can pick to not trust the certain person, or certain publication or conference, and have my personalized scientist ranking recounted. And of course, I could choose to delegate the trust, and to “follow” someone, which would mean to incorporate their rankings, especially in areas where I don’t orient that much. Do you think this would work?

tomlockwood 5y ago
I think the delegation of trust is already what is kind of happening in terms of academics trusting journals. I do agree that there's probably some cleverer solution on a personal level, but I think the journal system exists as a kind of guard against untrusted actors, and yet fails.
cortesoft 5y ago
Isn’t this already how it works? The current state represents everyone doing what you describe... enough people chose to delegate trust to the publications that everyone is fighting to get into, and here we are.
toomim 5y ago
Yes, I think this would work, and am working on it. Message me if interested.
- lazyjeff 5y ago
  Hey Mike, I'd be interested in being involved too. Ping me, you have my email.
kbenson 5y ago
Or, just have real repercussions for unethical behavior such as this. If they've identified these people, revoke reviewer status for them. If it was egregious and they have good evidence, publicly announce the revocation. If getting published has a positive benefit on a career, public information about past unethical behavior with regard to publishing and research should hopefully have a negative one.
webmaven 5y ago
> One of solutions is to let individuals choose who to trust. I can pick to not trust the certain person, or certain publication or conference, and have my personalized scientist ranking recounted. Are you asserting a 'trust' whitelist, a 'distrust' grey or blacklist, or some combination? Are assertions meant to be linked to or backed by evidence? Are these assertions publicly visible? Is there a limit to the number of assertions that can be made? I think you can see how such a system might devolve into formalized collusion. *> And of course, I could choose to delegate the trust, and to “follow” someone In the absence of explicit delegation or following, is trust/distrust intended to be transitive at all (ala PageRank or Advogato WoT)?

tomlockwood 5y ago

I think the delegation of trust is already what is kind of happening in terms of academics trusting journals. I do agree that there's probably some cleverer solution on a personal level, but I think the journal system exists as a kind of guard against untrusted actors, and yet fails.

cortesoft 5y ago

Isn’t this already how it works? The current state represents everyone doing what you describe... enough people chose to delegate trust to the publications that everyone is fighting to get into, and here we are.

toomim 5y ago

Yes, I think this would work, and am working on it. Message me if interested.

lazyjeff 5y ago
Hey Mike, I'd be interested in being involved too. Ping me, you have my email.

kbenson 5y ago

Or, just have real repercussions for unethical behavior such as this. If they've identified these people, revoke reviewer status for them. If it was egregious and they have good evidence, publicly announce the revocation. If getting published has a positive benefit on a career, public information about past unethical behavior with regard to publishing and research should hopefully have a negative one.

webmaven 5y ago

> One of solutions is to let individuals choose who to trust. I can pick to not trust the certain person, or certain publication or conference, and have my personalized scientist ranking recounted. Are you asserting a 'trust' whitelist, a 'distrust' grey or blacklist, or some combination? Are assertions meant to be linked to or backed by evidence? Are these assertions publicly visible? Is there a limit to the number of assertions that can be made? I think you can see how such a system might devolve into formalized collusion. *> And of course, I could choose to delegate the trust, and to “follow” someone In the absence of explicit delegation or following, is trust/distrust intended to be transitive at all (ala PageRank or Advogato WoT)?