Hacker News Reader

Comment by plaidfuji | Hacker News Reader

Beyond being a feel-good piece for math-inclined folks to finally have one to hold over those arrogant doctors, this basically reveals all the worst parts of credit distribution in academia. Until "knowledge" can be quantified and catalogued in an exhaustive database such that new contributions can be evaluated instantly for novelty, this kind of thing will occur because there are lots of inter-academic communication barriers to intermediate.

Also, the context of citations is important and isn't quantified by anyone. My guess would be that this paper has been cited more as a cautionary tale than in actual practice, and those two citations should not be treated equally.

View on HN

Academia is just one of those ancient industries that is tough to crack because of how traditional it is. I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid.

Just by the way Tai's Method was invented in 1994. Nothing has changed since then in terms of peer-review credibility or reliability. You will need to be a genius or a miracle worker to change up academia.

>"I just know there's some hungry entrepreneurs waiting to pounce on the idea of a "Modern Peer Review Journal" startup, but you will not be 'disrupting' this industry anytime soon I'm afraid."

What would they add beyond sci-hub?

one (far-fetched) idea would be peer-reviewed experimental research videos. See how the authors did the steps in their study. When an author writes up their experimental steps as a reader we are told the best version of events, however, the map is not the territory. Writing up research tells us little about the quality of the work, which is inferred from the publication, quality of writing, lab group, funding body etc.

Also, it would give the people doing the grunt work and gathering the experimental data some visibility rather than just the lead author.

The Journal of Visualized Experiments [0, 1] publishes peer-reviewed videos of experimental research. You should check it out if you're interested.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Visualized_Experime... [1] https://www.jove.com/

thanks, super cool - I feel like this should be part of the peer review process, especially for high impact journals with novel findings

Are they doing this and putting it on youtube, etc? If not then there is apparently no demand for it. And JOVE is a useful tool.

I wanted to try researchers wearing go pros or similar while collecting the data and all of this archived. You never know what detail someone may care about later.

This is basic high school pre-calculus.

EDIT: Er, calculus rather. Still not far removed from high school and should be a college course required for being a researcher.

Here here!

At some point (if not already), the limiting factor in discovery of new knowledge is going to be the time required to search previous knowledge (both for relevant inspiration and to avoid duplication).

We're already past the point where one can "just read" to stay abreast of a field.

FWIW. http://grammarist.com/spelling/hear-hear/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com