3 ms·
The alternative would be a journal/platform/wiki/repository of only reproducible results. Only double, triple, quadruple checked results would be accepted. In p
by alexvoda 5y ago
The alternative would be a journal/platform/wiki/repository of only reproducible results. Only double, triple, quadruple checked results would be accepted. In physics I believe this is called being above a certain value of sigma.
This should also require a way to prevent collusion.
All other content would be placed in a pending category.
- mrjangles 5y agoI disagree. The alternative would be simply to make an arxiv like website the only place where papers are published and include a system where other scientists can leave public comment and ratings for each paper. Then everyone can follow scientists that they trust and see what they have to say. This would never happen because the current system is about protecting academics' jobs, lest anyone discover that a majority of the work they do is so trivial and down right silly that anyone could do it with no training.
- alexvoda 5y agoNot sure a centralised entity is desirable vs a distributed network. And platforms for distributed networks do exist (1), (2). The issue is incentives for switching and reaching critical mass. (1) https://blog.science-octopus.org/ https://blog.science-octopus.org/ (2) https://osf.io/ https://osf.io/