4 ms·
I've always hoped that the PaperBricks, http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 model would catch on. My summary of the idea: There is a
by jsweojtj 11y ago
I've always hoped that the PaperBricks, http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 model would catch on.
My summary of the idea:
There is an awful lot of redundancy and wasted effort that goes into most papers. From introductions that need to be rewritten every time (when linking to a solid introduction would be both better and less time consuming). Each piece of a piece of a full paper (intro, data, analysis, ...) could be peer-reviewed and published individually. A full paper could then be built from these paper-bricks. Anyway, recommend reading the paper as it's well written and clear.
There's also a YouTube video by the author explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sorEcLjN04 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sorEcLjN04.
- jessriedel 11y agoThanks for this pointer. I added it to the bottom of the post.
- gerty 11y agoI think a positive side-effect of PaperBricks idea would be full standardization of notation. It's tiring to look up meaning of variables as they differ with each author.
- akavel 11y agoTL;DR for PaperBricks: "Formalize the structure of papers, such that each paper is composed of one or many (clearly marked) of the following "sections" ("bricks"): symbol description my description "I" Introduction ("domain intro") "PS" Problem Statement ("specific problem") "HLSI" High-Level Solution Idea ("solution vision") "D" Details ("solution implementation") "PE" Performance Evaluation ("benchmarks") and each "brick" must reference one or many bricks of the same or "earlier" level, forming a global graph." -------- >8 ---------- >8 ---------- Some of the advantages: * no need to rephrase the same "intro" in every domain paper, just reference an existing "I" brick; * a benchmark (PE) can just reference many "D"s; * one can easily work "backwards" -- e.g. start with a benchmark (PE) of existing implementations and already publish it, then propose a new implementation (D); * if someone publishes a similar paper before you, with similar "vision/idea" (HLSI), this doesn't totally destroy your publication, as you can still publish the part with an alternative implementation (D); * "I+PS+HLSI or I+HLSI: This is what some communities call a "vision paper" [...]" * & many more listed in the linked arxiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523. Very nice, short and readable one, this.
- jsweojtj 11y agoThank you for this more detailed comment. It does a nice job capturing the essentials of the paper.