3 ms·
I fully agree that the traditional journal and academic publishing models are having significant negative impact on the conduct of science. I also really like t
by mrandish 3y ago
I fully agree that the traditional journal and academic publishing models are having significant negative impact on the conduct of science. I also really like that the Arxiv, open access publishing, open peer review, live science and similar new models represent a refreshing return to less gatekeeping, politics and institutional gamesmanship.
Based on the early successes shown by applying social media platforms like Twitter, Twitch, Discord, etc, to accelerating science, I hope we can evolve better tools and platforms which are equally open but even more suited to the exchange of scientific ideas, results, review and feedback.
- wilg 3y agoI've always felt I love the idea of arXiv as a non-scientist who is interested in following science, but it's so esoteric and hard to follow (the density and format of scientific papers does not help). I would love something that was half arXiv and half-Twitter, and if papers were natively written for the web in an elegant and cross-linked way with rich explanations of related topics, interactive graphs with linked datasets, video, jargon explanations, etc.
- montecarl 3y agoMost science is way too boring and requires way to much work to reproduce to follow this kind of model. This open science type work we are seeing for LK-99 works fantastically when a huge number of scientists are interested in the problem and motivated to study it. Most papers aren't even cited more than a dozen times if that.