> Many, however, would not correct such a re-discovery, because it's embarrassing. This is a culture thing that needs to change. I'm a pretty big advocate of

> Many, however, would not correct such a re-discovery, because it's embarrassing. This is a culture thing that needs to change. I'm a pretty big advocate of open publishing and avoiding the "review process" as it stands today. The reason is because we shouldn't be chasing these notions of novelty and "impact". They are inherently subjective and lead to these issues of credit. Your work isn't diminished because you independently invented it, rather, that strengthens your work. There's more evidence! Everything is incremental and so all this stuff does is makes us focus more on trying to show our uniqueness rather than showing our work. The point of publishing is to communicate. The peer review process only happens post communicating: when people review, replicate, build on, or build against. We're just creating an overly competitive environment. It is only "embarrassing" because it "undermines" the work. It only "undermines" the work because how we view credit. Consider this as a clear example. Suppose you want to revisit a work but just scale it up and use on modern hardware. You could get state of the art results but if you admit to such a thing with no claimed changes (let's say you literally just increase number of layers) you'll never get published. You'll get responses about how we "already knew this" and "obviously it scales". But no one tested it... right? That's just bad for science. It's bad if we can't do mundane boring shit.