undefined | Better HN

0 pointsD-Machine22d ago0 comments

> How does that have anything to do with peer review?

I already addressed this. People know peer review can be bad, but some think "good journals" still do good peer review. This is not so clear.

> In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy?

Open systems allow the scientific community to figure out ways to properly assess research quality and value more cheaply, and without passing through (often arbitrary and random) small numbers of gatekeepers that don't even do a reliable or good job gatekeeping in the first place.

0 comments

bonsai_spool22d ago

Your argument depends on worse peer review at top journals - but fundamentally, you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review.

I understand that we want arxiv to exist, and it does, and it’s growing. That doesn’t mean we don’t want Nature or Science to triage the most compelling stories.

Importantly, we can already begin the search for these ‘cheaper’ review strategies while not losing the helpful information filter we get by seeing where things are presented/published

D-MachineOP22d ago

> Your argument depends on worse peer review at top journals - but fundamentally, you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review.

No, it doesn't. The argument is that peer review is incompetent gatekeeping in general, and so slows things down and makes thing expensive. Also, I am countering the argument "we need journals because journals do peer review" by arguing "peer review by journals isn't clearly actually good", I am not saying "peer review in general is unneeded", as I support review by the entire scientific community, rather than journal gatekeepers.

> you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review

I wasn't trying to show that. I have provided plenty of arguments to show why killing journal-based peer review could definitely speed things up and so potentially make things better. I want actual organic review by the community, not by tiny groups of gatekeepers.

bonsai_spool22d ago

> I want actual organic review by the community, not by tiny groups of gatekeepers.

But this happens—and good work is cited and talked about. I can't tell if you work in science, but this latter part is obvious.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsD-Machine22d ago0 comments

> How does that have anything to do with peer review?

I already addressed this. People know peer review can be bad, but some think "good journals" still do good peer review. This is not so clear.

> In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy?

0 comments

bonsai_spool22d ago

Your argument depends on worse peer review at top journals - but fundamentally, you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review.

I understand that we want arxiv to exist, and it does, and it’s growing. That doesn’t mean we don’t want Nature or Science to triage the most compelling stories.

Importantly, we can already begin the search for these ‘cheaper’ review strategies while not losing the helpful information filter we get by seeing where things are presented/published

D-MachineOP22d ago

> Your argument depends on worse peer review at top journals - but fundamentally, you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review.

> you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer review

bonsai_spool22d ago

> I want actual organic review by the community, not by tiny groups of gatekeepers.

But this happens—and good work is cited and talked about. I can't tell if you work in science, but this latter part is obvious.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse