5 ms·

Claims like this require peer review, not to mention this is a private company not a university lab. I’m worried over this trend of private companies putting p

Claims like this require peer review, not to mention this is a private company not a university lab. I’m worried over this trend of private companies putting press releases into LaTeX templates.

staunton 3y ago
> I’m worried over this trend of private companies putting press releases into LaTeX templates. People need to realize once and for all that templates no longer represent quality or truthfulness, if they ever did. Maybe that lesson has to hurt a bit.
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  People have forgotten the whole point of “preprint” is you’re still supposed to, ya know, print!
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Most people don't have printers anymore, they'd rather read it online /s
mometsi 3y ago
Peer review for commercial press releases is an interesting idea!
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  Now that is a job for GPT if I ever heard one. Garbage in garbage out.
bee_rider 3y ago
I wonder if there’s room for a section on Arxiv that is exclusively for papers that are on a peer-review track. Or maybe “peer or open review,” or something like that.
mistercow 3y ago
I think there are two ways to look at it, both of which are true: 1) scientific literature is being polluted with non-peer-reviewed PRs which makes it harder to figure out what is actually well validated, and 2) press releases are being nudged into being a hell of a lot more technically substantive and rich in relevant citations. The first one isn’t great, but as consolation prizes go, (2) isn’t bad.
- hyperphoton 3y ago
  [dead]
- aj7 3y ago
  Are you sure? Are you expert enough to read those papers? How do you achieve large scale integration in waveguides transparent to available laser sources? How does 250nm compare to the integration in your cell phone’s cpu? And we are decades away from modulatable miniaturized 250nm laser sources. It is typically 1.5um with today’s devices.
  - mistercow 3y ago
    > Are you expert enough to read those papers? Not in this case, no. But in cases where I do have more knowledge, the additional detail makes it much easier to tell if there's anything of substance there, compared to traditional press releases which just make superficial marketing claims with minimal technical detail. And if this were something more relevant to me, but where I didn't have expertise necessary to look at it, I could reach out to someone with the expertise needed to take a look. The point here is that it's very difficult talk at great length and in great detail about BS without making it apparent to experts that you're talking BS, whereas with a more traditional PR, the best you can often say is "well, if this is anything, these are very big claims."
- bevekspldnw 3y ago
  I disagree, people who are not expert consumers of information, but do think “arXiv is science stuff” are easily misled, and I trust citations from private companies without strong academic pedigree as worthless at best, harmful at worst. It’s pretty easy to con investors if you have the same “look” as a real lab.

Claims like this require peer review, not to mention this is a private company not a university lab. I’m worried over this trend of private companies putting press releases into LaTeX templates.

staunton 3y ago

> I’m worried over this trend of private companies putting press releases into LaTeX templates. People need to realize once and for all that templates no longer represent quality or truthfulness, if they ever did. Maybe that lesson has to hurt a bit.

bevekspldnw 3y ago
People have forgotten the whole point of “preprint” is you’re still supposed to, ya know, print!
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Most people don't have printers anymore, they'd rather read it online /s

mometsi 3y ago

Peer review for commercial press releases is an interesting idea!

bevekspldnw 3y ago
Now that is a job for GPT if I ever heard one. Garbage in garbage out.

bee_rider 3y ago

I wonder if there’s room for a section on Arxiv that is exclusively for papers that are on a peer-review track. Or maybe “peer or open review,” or something like that.

mistercow 3y ago

I think there are two ways to look at it, both of which are true: 1) scientific literature is being polluted with non-peer-reviewed PRs which makes it harder to figure out what is actually well validated, and 2) press releases are being nudged into being a hell of a lot more technically substantive and rich in relevant citations. The first one isn’t great, but as consolation prizes go, (2) isn’t bad.

hyperphoton 3y ago
[dead]
aj7 3y ago
Are you sure? Are you expert enough to read those papers? How do you achieve large scale integration in waveguides transparent to available laser sources? How does 250nm compare to the integration in your cell phone’s cpu? And we are decades away from modulatable miniaturized 250nm laser sources. It is typically 1.5um with today’s devices.
- mistercow 3y ago
  > Are you expert enough to read those papers? Not in this case, no. But in cases where I do have more knowledge, the additional detail makes it much easier to tell if there's anything of substance there, compared to traditional press releases which just make superficial marketing claims with minimal technical detail. And if this were something more relevant to me, but where I didn't have expertise necessary to look at it, I could reach out to someone with the expertise needed to take a look. The point here is that it's very difficult talk at great length and in great detail about BS without making it apparent to experts that you're talking BS, whereas with a more traditional PR, the best you can often say is "well, if this is anything, these are very big claims."
bevekspldnw 3y ago
I disagree, people who are not expert consumers of information, but do think “arXiv is science stuff” are easily misled, and I trust citations from private companies without strong academic pedigree as worthless at best, harmful at worst. It’s pretty easy to con investors if you have the same “look” as a real lab.