3 ms·

>Only now we can accept all 50, because why not? Because the downside to creating an ever growing haystack is that it becomes increasingly difficult to find a

by bumby 3y ago

>Only now we can accept all 50, because why not? Because the downside to creating an ever growing haystack is that it becomes increasingly difficult to find a needle. Making it easier to create a deluge of bad research won’t help me find the worthwhile research that would actually help me in my job. If I had the choice between collecting “all the data” and just collecting “the really good and relevant data” I’m opting for the latter. You are also contradicting yourself by saying it’s not the editors job to vet submissions, yet also say they weed out “crackpot” work. All you’re saying is they lazily/loosely vet submissions. I’m saying the overall system (not just the editors) have a role in providing a reasonably sized haystack (and would also admit the current system is not great at this, but it’s better than a wild-west approach)

adastra22 3y ago
You just use better tools to manage it. Fine-tuned LLMs and Google Scholar like search engines help here. To stretch an analogy it is like email. The job of the editor is the same as the spam detection service run by hosted email providers. They actually go in and actively hide scams and worthless ad email from you, and we thank them for it. Some email providers have recently started offering "focused inbox" modes where they prioritize emails for you too. I don't use that, but I could see why some people do. But importantly they don't block email based on those heuristics, like they might do for spam. You still get non-priority emails. But imagine a world where gmail straight up blocked/rejected email which it didn't consider priority. Would you want that? The situation with journals is comparable. Editors have a spam/crank detection duty, but they shouldn't be rejecting manuscripts beyond that.
- bumby 3y ago
  What you’re describing is essentially an arms race in quantity. Yes, we can use tools to help sort, but those same tools can also be used to deluge the inbox and obfuscate the bad. In fact, one of the best ways to sort is by using specific journals/journal metrics as a proxy for quality. That is much, much easier (and productive) than trying to sort based on some Google scholar advanced query. For example, it's much easier for a journal to retract an article that was shown an inability to replicate than to create a search to do the same. The tone of your comment is very techno-optimist, which is very on brand for HN. In that view, every problem is solved by technology, even those that are created by technology. I would argue there are some problems that are better solved with less technology, not more.
- MaxBarraclough 3y ago
  > Editors have a spam/crank detection duty, but they shouldn't be rejecting manuscripts beyond that. If the system is working, publication in a reputable journal serves as a useful, albeit imperfect, indicator of scientific quality. Top journals shouldn't be publishing deeply flawed work, or even decent work in clear need of a rewrite. It's not just about spam and cranks.

by bumby 3y ago

adastra22 3y ago

You just use better tools to manage it. Fine-tuned LLMs and Google Scholar like search engines help here. To stretch an analogy it is like email. The job of the editor is the same as the spam detection service run by hosted email providers. They actually go in and actively hide scams and worthless ad email from you, and we thank them for it. Some email providers have recently started offering "focused inbox" modes where they prioritize emails for you too. I don't use that, but I could see why some people do. But importantly they don't block email based on those heuristics, like they might do for spam. You still get non-priority emails. But imagine a world where gmail straight up blocked/rejected email which it didn't consider priority. Would you want that? The situation with journals is comparable. Editors have a spam/crank detection duty, but they shouldn't be rejecting manuscripts beyond that.

bumby 3y ago
What you’re describing is essentially an arms race in quantity. Yes, we can use tools to help sort, but those same tools can also be used to deluge the inbox and obfuscate the bad. In fact, one of the best ways to sort is by using specific journals/journal metrics as a proxy for quality. That is much, much easier (and productive) than trying to sort based on some Google scholar advanced query. For example, it's much easier for a journal to retract an article that was shown an inability to replicate than to create a search to do the same. The tone of your comment is very techno-optimist, which is very on brand for HN. In that view, every problem is solved by technology, even those that are created by technology. I would argue there are some problems that are better solved with less technology, not more.
MaxBarraclough 3y ago
> Editors have a spam/crank detection duty, but they shouldn't be rejecting manuscripts beyond that. If the system is working, publication in a reputable journal serves as a useful, albeit imperfect, indicator of scientific quality. Top journals shouldn't be publishing deeply flawed work, or even decent work in clear need of a rewrite. It's not just about spam and cranks.