3 ms·
Show HN: Open Review – Scientific peer review is broken. We want to fix it
- peterjmag 13y agoFor those of you who want to jump right in and see some actual results: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984904_Stimulus-triggered_fate_conversion_of_somatic_cells_into_pluripotency/reviews/103 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259984904_Stimulus-... And a bit more information about the feature itself: https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.OpenReviewInfo.html https://www.researchgate.net/publicliterature.OpenReviewInfo... I'm a front-end engineer / designer at ResearchGate, and we've been working our butts off to get this out. I really think this could turn the scientific community and the peer review system on its head. Of course, I'd love to hear your feedback!
- teyc 13y agoActually, I'd like to see what happens when you apply Google's antispam measures to research papers. There are some researchers who constantly reference one another, like a link farm, in order to boost their credentials.
- svenkatesh 13y agoMaybe it would help reduce the incidence of citation cartels, but the other issue is that some fields are very small -- especially in highly technical fields like math and in some sub-fields of biology. In those cases, papers that are cited have to be cited because they're the only ones relevant to the research area.
- shiven 13y agoIf only it were that simple. PageRank is no panacea and not all cross-citations are incestuous, as you seem to be implying.
- teyc 13y agoNo they do not imply wrong doing. There are a lot of good reasons why cross citation occurs. Having an alternate score gives you another sense of what kind of work this person is doing. You have to remember - using cross citation to inflate rankings have a social cost as well. It prevents other more promising research from gaining the right attention.