3 ms·

Apart from the lack of anonymity, I think that the ideals of such a system are very similar to the ideas of any social voting system (such as Stack Overflow, Sl

by rlpb 15y ago

Apart from the lack of anonymity, I think that the ideals of such a system are very similar to the ideas of any social voting system (such as Stack Overflow, Slashdot, reddit, HN). The goal is to simply have a rating system that works, right? The trouble is that we still haven't managed to do this well in the technology world. And some of us believe that we need to go back to some level of curation. I'd love to see a system as described that actually works. But until we (the tech world) manage to figure out a system that works, I'm not convinced that scientific publishing will fare any differently.

Joakal 15y ago
The technology world already has it; We have Wikipedia (Edit history), Advogato (Paths), StackOverflow (Rep), etc that encourage personal profiles. You are more valued as a loyal member than one that just started. Unlike Reddit, Slashdot and HN that do not encourage personal profiles. Do you even remember my name? What about other HNers besides pg? Why do you read their posts anyway? They work because it's a form of almost pure democracy being applied and have the same problems of it eg tyranny of the majority. What the scientific model can do is a multitude of above; institution API confirming credentials (Referral), history (paths, did this person do other reviews?), etc. Cheap and still effective peer-review. I'm not sure which kind of government type applies to my suggestion above, but there are many forms of government they can apply. More: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_forms_of_government https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_forms...