4 ms·
It's almost like these folks haven't heard of a wiki. The term doesn't appear in the primary reference on possible solutions.[9] > classical model tested over
by beefman 3y ago
It's almost like these folks haven't heard of a wiki. The term doesn't appear in the primary reference on possible solutions.[9]
> classical model tested over millennia
Peer review as standard practice is less than a century old. Scientific journals are less than 400 years old.
[9] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4
- diffeomorphism 3y agoNot really relevant. Whether you implement the post-publication peer review and corrections with a wiki software or as corrigendums or voting or ... is an implementation question once you have solved the questions pointed out. In particular, the first issue pointed out are misaligned incentives for these corrections (think of wikipedia spam; kernel contributions for trivial spelling mistakes or adding <3...). Or the lack of recognition for doing this work. Or author rights, when the "corrections" introduce quite radical changes (e.g. think of policy articles). "Just make it a wiki" will not magically fix these issues.