3 ms·

It’s okay to recognize a problem without proposing a solution. I agree that there are alarming levels of fraud. But heading straight to “tear down the journals”

It’s okay to recognize a problem without proposing a solution. I agree that there are alarming levels of fraud. But heading straight to “tear down the journals” seems mistaken. New progress is rarely made by burning down old structures. New work tends to transcend old work. So the best way to remove the gate keeping mechanisms is to make them irrelevant. I suspect that a few more generations of tech progress might make that a reality. It seems like a matter of time till some teenage upstart is hacking on their brain the same way I hack on ML, for better or worse. And teenagers tend to notice correlations that the old guard miss. We’re just not there yet. And that’s fine. Our options are to work within the confines of existing systems, or build new systems. Removing mechanisms is a bit like removing a dam because it’s leaking. The best strategy is probably to fix the leaks.

lettergram 4y ago
> But heading straight to “tear down the journals” seems mistaken. Ultimately, I think journals can be reformed but it’ll break their business model. Effectively, you can publish without reviews. Then have credentialed people anywhere anonymously making comments / challenges. You can also let the public similarly comment. Similar to movie reviews - people in and out of the industry could both review. On top of that, allocate 25% of grants for replication which could be done in a somewhat public manner and attached to as a report on the paper. Things like that. That said, Einstein had his work initially rejected. There weren’t strong journals at the time as a gate keeper. Just people would publish and publicly debate — I don’t think there’s an issue with that now. Particularly, With the internet.
- Beldin 4y ago
  > Effectively, you can publish without reviews. Yes, you can. If you want an academic career, you'll also need to publish in prestigious outlets though. I would love a better model for academia, but I haven't heard a convincing one, let alone that gaining sufficient traction.

lettergram 4y ago

> But heading straight to “tear down the journals” seems mistaken. Ultimately, I think journals can be reformed but it’ll break their business model. Effectively, you can publish without reviews. Then have credentialed people anywhere anonymously making comments / challenges. You can also let the public similarly comment. Similar to movie reviews - people in and out of the industry could both review. On top of that, allocate 25% of grants for replication which could be done in a somewhat public manner and attached to as a report on the paper. Things like that. That said, Einstein had his work initially rejected. There weren’t strong journals at the time as a gate keeper. Just people would publish and publicly debate — I don’t think there’s an issue with that now. Particularly, With the internet.

Beldin 4y ago
> Effectively, you can publish without reviews. Yes, you can. If you want an academic career, you'll also need to publish in prestigious outlets though. I would love a better model for academia, but I haven't heard a convincing one, let alone that gaining sufficient traction.