anishrverma

3 ms·

1.
Liberata – graph scientometrics for share-based academic publishing(arxiv.org)
2 points by anishrverma 5mo ago|1 comments
2.
by anishrverma 5mo ago
We just posted a preprint describing one of the core technical ideas behind Liberata, in replacing discrete authorship positions with continuous contribution shares, then combining those shares with weighted citation graphs to define "
3.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
Agreed. Accountability matters, but changing the game usually scales better than hoping for better individual behaviour under the same pressures. Academia needs systems that reward transparency, verification, and contribution more directly.
4.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
This is what makes the problem feel so systemic, in that weak consequences after the fact, and weak incentives for transparency before the fact. If the system mostly rewards output and prestige, then misconduct can remain a high-upside bet.
5.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
I think this is the right tension, in that bad incentives matter, but that does not remove personal responsibility. We probably need both stronger accountability for clear misconduct and better systems that make rigor, transparency, and ver
6.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
This (also) feels like a core failure mode, in that papers are optimized for skim-level persuasion because the system is too overloaded for deep evaluation at scale. Then a lot of the actual scrutiny gets pushed onto under-credited sub-revi
7.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
This feels like a core failure mode: papers are optimized for skim-level persuasion because the system is too overloaded for deep evaluation at scale. Then a lot of the actual scrutiny gets pushed onto under-credited sub-review labour. Peer
8.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
Strongly agree. When code, data, and workflow details stay hidden, the system rewards claims more than verification. That is where shortcuts, irreproducibility, and worse can thrive. We need infrastructure that gives more credit to transpar
9.
by anishrverma 6mo ago
I think this is exactly the hard part: individual virtue alone does not solve a system where supervisors, trainees, and funders are all pulled by the same incentives. "Do slower, better science" is not actionable unless the surrou
10.
by anishrverma 9mo ago
I don’t read the NeurIPS statement as malicious per se, but I do think it’s incomplete They’re right that a citation error doesn’t automatically invalidate the technical content of a paper, and that there are relatively benign ways these mi
11.
by anishrverma 9mo ago
Yeah, spot on. If all we do is add more plausible sounding text on top of already fragile review and incentive structures, that really could make things worse rather than better Your second point is the important one. AI may be the thing th
12.
by anishrverma 9mo ago
Agreed. What I find more interesting is how easy these errors are to introduce and how unlikely they are to be caught. As you point out, a DOI checker would immediately flag this. But citation verification isn’t a first-class part of the su
13.
by anishrverma 9mo ago
The prevalence of hallucinations in the system is another signs for change in the system. The citations should be treated less like narrative context and more like verifiable objects Better detectors, like the article implies, won’t solve t