3 ms·
Have the papers gotten that good or bad?
by j45 1y ago
Have the papers gotten that good or bad?
- Sharlin 1y agoYep, so good that they have to be specifically reviewed because otherwise people wouldn’t believe how good they are.
- Maken 1y agoActual papers are as good as ever. This is just trying to stop the flood of autogenated slop, if anything because arXiv hosting space is not free.
- physarum_salad 1y agoIt is actually great because it shows how well it works as a system. Screening is really important to keep preprint quality high enough to then implement cool ideas like random peer review/automated reviews etc
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> we are developing a whole new method to do peer review What’s the new method?
- physarum_salad 1y agoI mean generally working towards changing how peer review works. For example: https://prereview.org/en-us https://prereview.org/en-us Anecdotally, a lot of researchers will run their paper pdfs through an AI iteration or two during drafting which also (kinda but not really) counts as a self-review. Although that is not comparable to peer review ofc.
- candiddevmike 1y agoI've seen quite a few preprints posted on HN with clearly fantastical claims that only seem to reinforce or ride the coattails of the current hype cycle. It's no longer research, it's becoming "top of funnel thought leadership".
- nunez 1y agoResume Driven Development, Academia Edition