42 ms·
Publish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.
by adastra22 1mo ago
Publish in academic language means accepted peer-reviewed paper.
- auggierose 1mo agoAccepted by whom? Peer-reviewed by whom? I guess these little questions are what this article is really about.
- d0mine 1mo ago> “The ultimate decision as to whether a publication qualifies as a “Qualifying Outlet” shall reside in the sole and unfettered discretion of CMI.”
- auggierose 1mo ago[flagged]
- athrowaway3z 1mo agoBy peers. Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. The cultural/social question you might ask today is "why (keep) them?". At which point people will naturally ask you to make a strong case for "why not them?".
- thaumasiotes 1mo ago> The logical issue with 'peers' is how to bootstrap it. At that bootstrap moment you can ask "by whom?". We are several centuries past that moment. Huh? We're about six decades past that moment.
- auggierose 1mo ago> Peer in peer-reviewed is a logical coherent and functional definition with answers. What is the definition? If you tell me that, then I might be able to tell you if it is logical coherent and functional, I have a PhD in computational logic.
- wokwokwok 1mo agoYour (many) replies on this topic are being down voted for a reason; please either post substantive comments or stop.
- auggierose 1mo agoYes, for a reason, but not a reasonable reason, but the same reason you have for your comment: you just don’t know any better.
- da_chicken 1mo agoAmongst all this rhetorical brush-beating, what were you trying to teach the snakes?
- raverbashing 1mo ago> I have a PhD in computational logic. And you don't know how the peer-review system works? Just a hunch but Claude saying your work is "PhD level" does not count
- auggierose 1mo agoI know that it doesn't work.
- athrowaway3z 1mo agoSomething like this sketch work for you? peer(X, 0) :- founding_peer(X). electorate(T, count<Y>) :- peer(Y, T). support(X, T, count<Y>) :- candidate(X), peer(Y, T), recognizes(Y, X, T+1). peer(X, T+1) :- support(X, T, Votes), electorate(T, Total), 2 * Votes > Total.
- auggierose 1mo agoStill waiting for a definition. People giving nonsense reviews is a feature of the peer review system though, yes.
- syncsynchalt 1mo agoPresumably the organization giving away the million dollars is the arbiter of that question.
- fc417fc802 1mo agoI run this journal that you've never heard of that might interest you. I'd also like to invite you to be an editor, you can put it on your CV of course ...
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- aaron695 1mo ago[dead]
- Razengan 1mo agoSeems like artificial and maybe bitter gatekeeping
- AnimalMuppet 1mo agoFor giving away a million bucks, you get to gatekeep however you choose. But no, peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal is a fairly normal standard.
- pred_ 1mo agoAnd just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
- karmakurtisaani 1mo agoThis is a good reminder for the generation grown up in the era of trust-me-bro benchmarks.
- limagnolia 1mo agoBeing normal doesn't necessarily mean it isn't gatekeeping- gatekeeping is also quite "normal" in many cases. That being said, I think there needs to be some standard, and peer review seems like the best we have come up with. But is the current status quo for scientific publication the best we can do? I think that is an open question and we should be able to openly discuss alternatives.
- AnimalMuppet 1mo ago"Is it the best we can do?" is a completely different question from "given that it's the current standard, should it be applied to this new claim that is happening now?"
- 1mo ago
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- CGMthrowaway 1mo agohttps://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...
- adastra22 1mo agoNot sure what your point is? When they say published they mean peer review. Regardless of what you think about publication, that's what it means.
- qlte 1mo agoUnless you're suggesting they should change the existing qualification criteria to accommodate a group unwilling to play by the same rules as everyone else, I'm not sure why that's relevant.