4 ms·
On the career / publishing perspective: I think you're overlooking the fact that an upload to such a peer-review platform would usually be considered non-archiv
by t_mann 4y ago
On the career / publishing perspective: I think you're overlooking the fact that an upload to such a peer-review platform would usually be considered non-archival, so the paper could still be published in a prestigious journal. It's basically a pre-print server with a comment function (which already exists in some sort, btw, researchgate.net), and most journals have accepted that they can't stop people from making their papers available through such channels.
The bigger threat to this model is probably places like arXiv/SSRN adding similar functionality, but since this seems to be a non-profit project, it would probably mean mission accomplished.
- dbingham 4y agoSomeone cribbing our approach would be mission partially accomplished. The idea is to displace the journal system and advance open science and academic publishing. If it accomplishes that goal, mission accomplished. I'll be a little sad if I didn't get to participate, but the whole world of software development awaits and there are other neat projects to work on. If they crib our approach, but execute poorly and don't succeed in opening publishing, that's not mission accomplished, but there's no reason we can't move forward and execute better in that scenario. If they crib the approach and show why it doesn't work, that's also mission accomplished. It shows that this isn't the right solution to the problem. Or maybe we succeed - it remains to be seen. Any of those outcomes - cribbed and failed, cribbed and succeeded, or we fail/succeed in a way that shows whether the concept works clearly - we would consider mission accomplished.