4 ms·
"this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil." Everything is snake oil and an end-run. Have you ever read Nature? Have you ever submitted a grant to th
by untilHellbanned 12y ago
"this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil."
Everything is snake oil and an end-run. Have you ever read Nature? Have you ever submitted a grant to the NIH?
""virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue." Virtually no reasonable academics respect it.
Read this, an interview of Sydney Brenner, no doubt one of the most important biologist ever.
http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academ...
- lvs 12y agoEverything is snake oil and an end-run. It sounds to me like you're conceding the argument. I don't disagree with your sentiments about the quality of review, but manufacturing an outlet to completely sidestep peer review (the key word being "peer") does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, it runs directly counter to your stated ambitions.
- untilHellbanned 12y agoI've already addressed peer review with you earlier in this thread. You need to look closer at the site. Also, Onarbor devised reputation building to be similar to what Stackoverflow (SO) is doing with Reputation for computer programmers (REF below). The reputation you earn on SO is replacing the C.V. in hiring decisions across silicon valley. Onarbor more or less replicates SO's Reputation system with the analogous intent to replace existing academia advancement mechanisms. ref: http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation http://stackoverflow.com/help/whats-reputation