3 ms·

"Too urgent to be peer-reviewed" Maybe the sixteen co-authors could have...oh, wait what?

• in_cahoots 11y ago
  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or being sarcastic, but the number of coauthors is not indicative of a broader consensus. I've published many papers with 20 or 30 coauthors - a handful of famous professors from one or two schools / modes of thought, and a bunch of postdocs, researchers, and grad students. We still had to go through peer review. The thing you have to remember is that this is all speculation. If they're right, 16 authors can say they were the founders of a new model. If they're wrong... Well there's always another model to publish. The fact that a bunch of friends and colleagues can agree on something doesn't mean there is a wider consensus.
  • 001sky 11y ago
    My point is if your can organize a paper with sixteen co-authors you can also arrange for peer review. Shortcutting the process makes no sense. Well, it makes perfect sense as propoganda. But not as sincere science.