7 ms·

science in the modern sense is far less than 1000 years old, and emerged in tandem with systems of publication which no did not use the contemporary review syst

science in the modern sense is far less than 1000 years old, and emerged in tandem with systems of publication which no did not use the contemporary review system but did have editors who decided whether or not to publish submissions. not defending the peer review process as it currently exists but it’s not a bizarre outlier in the history of science

danielbln 3y ago
Also, the scientific method took shape in what, the 17th century? Thousands of years, that's quite the stretch for "science".
xorbax 3y ago
Eventually somebody will say "what if arXive, but we had really smart people who were volunteer experts read this bullshit first and decide if it was good enough? It would be like arXive but way more efficient for the end user!"
- godelski 3y ago
  That's not far from how it actually works. 90% of what I read is from arxiv, and before it has been accepted into a journal or conference. Most of the time that I'm visiting a conference website is to submit a paper or get the proper citation for the paper I'm writing. Like I'm not sure what you expect, just dumb people to read arxiv? If that were the case then no one would be submitting works to arxiv. The reason works go there is because researchers are reading them. They then talk about the works to their peers, post on twitter, blog, or whatever. And guess what, that's also exactly how works that are published in journals and conferences get passed around because there's a million of them too and no way for people to sort them. No one is sitting around ranking papers. That process happens by citations. Who do you think the end user is? Laymen?
  - SiempreViernes 3y ago
    Are you aware that the origin of Arxiv was as a pre-print archive? People read stuff on there because it was freely accessible drafts of published work, and in my field that is still the most common practice.
    - godelski 3y ago
      Yes, but I think you're being too strict with the definition of draft. It is not "draft" as in "first draft of my paper" it is "draft" as in "we submitted this to journal/conference and are just making widely available" or "here's the same copy that is behind a paywall, fuck jstor." There's a reason most papers that end up in journals or conferences don't get a revision, or if they do only get minor ones. In general it is the same exact work which got sent to a journal or conference. So that is either the final draft or near. I do not want people to confuse this with "early" or "first" draft. The history of arxiv is a few physicists getting annoyed that, like many of their peers, that sending per-prints (papers awaiting review by a journal) by email was burdensome. This was about just making access easier. It was about literally making peer review easier. Because let's be real, your colleagues reading your work closely is better review by peers than a few random people who are annoyed about having to review and know it is easy to just dismiss and reject.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Arxiv is moderated[1], so that's basically exactly how it currently works though the standards for what is let trough are lenient. [1] https://blog.arxiv.org/2019/08/29/our-moderation-process/ https://blog.arxiv.org/2019/08/29/our-moderation-process/

danielbln 3y ago

Also, the scientific method took shape in what, the 17th century? Thousands of years, that's quite the stretch for "science".

xorbax 3y ago

Eventually somebody will say "what if arXive, but we had really smart people who were volunteer experts read this bullshit first and decide if it was good enough? It would be like arXive but way more efficient for the end user!"

godelski 3y ago
That's not far from how it actually works. 90% of what I read is from arxiv, and before it has been accepted into a journal or conference. Most of the time that I'm visiting a conference website is to submit a paper or get the proper citation for the paper I'm writing. Like I'm not sure what you expect, just dumb people to read arxiv? If that were the case then no one would be submitting works to arxiv. The reason works go there is because researchers are reading them. They then talk about the works to their peers, post on twitter, blog, or whatever. And guess what, that's also exactly how works that are published in journals and conferences get passed around because there's a million of them too and no way for people to sort them. No one is sitting around ranking papers. That process happens by citations. Who do you think the end user is? Laymen?
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Are you aware that the origin of Arxiv was as a pre-print archive? People read stuff on there because it was freely accessible drafts of published work, and in my field that is still the most common practice.
  - godelski 3y ago
    Yes, but I think you're being too strict with the definition of draft. It is not "draft" as in "first draft of my paper" it is "draft" as in "we submitted this to journal/conference and are just making widely available" or "here's the same copy that is behind a paywall, fuck jstor." There's a reason most papers that end up in journals or conferences don't get a revision, or if they do only get minor ones. In general it is the same exact work which got sent to a journal or conference. So that is either the final draft or near. I do not want people to confuse this with "early" or "first" draft. The history of arxiv is a few physicists getting annoyed that, like many of their peers, that sending per-prints (papers awaiting review by a journal) by email was burdensome. This was about just making access easier. It was about literally making peer review easier. Because let's be real, your colleagues reading your work closely is better review by peers than a few random people who are annoyed about having to review and know it is easy to just dismiss and reject.
SiempreViernes 3y ago
Arxiv is moderated[1], so that's basically exactly how it currently works though the standards for what is let trough are lenient. [1] https://blog.arxiv.org/2019/08/29/our-moderation-process/ https://blog.arxiv.org/2019/08/29/our-moderation-process/