3 ms·
Eliminating journals as a corporate monopoly doesn't eliminate peer review. For example, it should be easy to show the number of citations and even their speci
by d0mine 2y ago
Eliminating journals as a corporate monopoly doesn't eliminate peer review. For example, it should be easy to show the number of citations and even their specific context in other articles on the arxiv-like site. For example, if I like some app/library implementation on github, I look at their dependencies (a citation in a sense) to discover things to try.
Curated lists can also exist on the site. Look at awesome* repos on github eg https://github.com/vinta/awesome-python https://github.com/vinta/awesome-python
Obviously, some lists can be better than the others. Usual social mechanics is adequate here.
- bumby 2y agoI think citation is a noisy/poor signal for peer-review. I've refereed a number of papers where I dig into the citations and find the article doesn't actually support the author's claim. Still, the vast majority of citations go unchecked. I don't think peer-review has to be done by journals, I'm just not sure what the better solution is.
- d0mine 2y agoI’ve definitely encountered such cases myself (when actual cited paper didn’t support author’s claims). Nothing prevents the site introducing more direct peer review (published X papers on a topic -> review a paper). Though If we compare two cases: reading a paper to leave an anonymous review vs reading a paper to cite it. The latter seems like more authentic and useful (less perversed incentives).