A prescription for streamlining the scientific publication process. via the author's brother on google + . I like that his approach tries to implement what scientists already do: assess an article on its technical merits, its agreement with other well-supported hypotheses, personal experiences and those of trusted peers. And I agree that completed research need to get communicated much faster, or else progress is globally slowed.
Issues:
1) Why in the proposed schema are we still relying on a handful of subjective and biased individuals as primary and final gatekeepers? Why not parse submissions to a crowd of interested reviewers, whose arguments are synthesized by a dedicated professional who then makes a more informed call? The main concern is that each reviewing brain represents not just one perspective but likely an impaired and rushed one. Open-source this step.
2) It doesn't follow that because bad papers got through the classical review filter, the filter is screwed. All filters have a fail rate, and it's the rate we need to evaluate - not the fact of failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment