3 ms·

If you are not even going to bother writing them up properly, no one is going to care. Seems fair to me. You don’t have to make a ”paper” out of it, maybe make

by tsurba 2y ago

If you are not even going to bother writing them up properly, no one is going to care. Seems fair to me. You don’t have to make a ”paper” out of it, maybe make blog post or whatever if that is more your style. Maybe upload a pdf to arxiv. Half the job in science is informing (or convincing) everyone else about what you made and why it is significant. That’s what conferences try to facilitate, but if you don’t want to do that, feel free to do the ”advertising” some other way. Complaining about journals being selective is just a lazy excuse for not publishing anything to help others. Sure the system sucks, but then you can just publish some other way. For example, ask other people who understand your work to ”peer review” your blog posts.

fhdjkghdfjkf 2y ago
> Half the job in science is informing (or convincing) everyone else about what you made and why it is significant. Additionally, writing is the best way to properly think things through. If you can't write an article about your work then most likely you don't even understand it yet. Maybe there are critical errors in it. Maybe you'll find that you can further improve it. By researching and citing the relevant literature you put your work in perspective, how it relates to other results.
larodi 2y ago
the point was about the paper thing, not about the joy of writing one's thoughts down or publishing in the public domain. most of my work gets published these days - code, designs, teaching, translations... actually prefer it to keeping backups of obscure random. but of course, people sure do release a lot of cool stuff on github and where not. one of my repos has ±300 stars and going, thousands of papers are anyway near in actual impact. BUT... the topic is not about releasing stuff in the wild. opensource being a vehicle for research is outside the scope of present discussion. the incentives and the barrier to writing what is called an academic paper is. wild stuff does not bring impact factor, and does not get you closer to a PhD in the practical sense. the whole paper thing is intended for sharing purposes, yet it keeps people away very successfully. its a system, not a welcoming one, that all I'm saying.

by tsurba 2y ago

fhdjkghdfjkf 2y ago

> Half the job in science is informing (or convincing) everyone else about what you made and why it is significant. Additionally, writing is the best way to properly think things through. If you can't write an article about your work then most likely you don't even understand it yet. Maybe there are critical errors in it. Maybe you'll find that you can further improve it. By researching and citing the relevant literature you put your work in perspective, how it relates to other results.

larodi 2y ago

the point was about the paper thing, not about the joy of writing one's thoughts down or publishing in the public domain. most of my work gets published these days - code, designs, teaching, translations... actually prefer it to keeping backups of obscure random. but of course, people sure do release a lot of cool stuff on github and where not. one of my repos has ±300 stars and going, thousands of papers are anyway near in actual impact. BUT... the topic is not about releasing stuff in the wild. opensource being a vehicle for research is outside the scope of present discussion. the incentives and the barrier to writing what is called an academic paper is. wild stuff does not bring impact factor, and does not get you closer to a PhD in the practical sense. the whole paper thing is intended for sharing purposes, yet it keeps people away very successfully. its a system, not a welcoming one, that all I'm saying.