3 ms·

So in my proposed system "publish" maps exactly to "get linked by this or that prestigious review panel". Everyone who replied me seems to have missed that. Ba

• bentoner 17y ago
  But is there really a difference then? Hosting the content is a tiny proportion of the work involved in running a journal. If you're going to go through all the effort required to peer-review and certify work, why wouldn't you also throw up a website and collect the papers you certify?
  • JulianMorrison 17y ago
    A larger part is deciding what not to host, given the crazy old-fashioned notion that journals ought also to have dead-tree versions, and therefore each paper costs them quite a lot for a small print run. Why would actual science come in neat magazine-sized packets? It's obvious they must be normalizing the signal, either by floating the cutoff or just picking until the slots are full and trashing the rest. A review panel that doesn't have to pay some company to stamp ink onto wood pulp can afford to link as many, or as few good papers as arrive. And, they can afford to do this asynchronously, as soon as they arrive.
• bbgm 17y ago
  That is kind of what the Faculty of 1000 does today. Essentially picks papers regardless of source that they feel is significant. Perhaps in the future that will be the role of Science, Nature, etc with papers getting published all over the place. Of course, the whole peer review process needs an upgrade too, although I don't know if peer review as a concept is going away (nor should it)