This idea has been around over 20 years. It dies every time because major lab PIs, usually in US, HATE the idea of not being able to gatekeep research publications in journals of “high impact”. This impacts how institutions are assessed, because, God forbid people actually have to read the papers. This feeds back to Editors, so the number one factor that influences Editors now is zip code.
If we went to a simple repository archive, with transparent peer review, then no one could imply their research is more important because of where it was published. We would let citations determine impact. Science publishing has always pushed the idea that if Einstein drove a Honda, everyone who drives a Honda is a genius.
Meanhile, The Lancet (JIF 105) took 12 years to retract a paper linking autism to vaccines, when it was clearly fraudulent from day one. Nature, Science, CELL, just stopped retractions, at best, they have “statements of Editorial Concern”. This high JIF model is why Alzheimers research has stalled behind a flawed hypothesis only reinforced by fraudulent work not retracted for 25 years. Some people, like the President of Stanford, rose to the top tier on fraud and journal gatekeeping.
It’s simple. Have a central repository similar to Axriv or BioRxiv, but one step further where a manuscript is modified after peer review. The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.
It should be supported by a consortium of countries, because the world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.
The current situation is so broken, important research can get held up for YEARS by some cunt at Harvard or Stanford who wil delay the process while his/her lab catches up. Soem of these prize winners owe their careers to “inspiration” from studies they reviewed and rejected.
The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.
…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?
That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv’s nice frontend is literally the stack to do it. And they have the name recognition to draw people in.
This idea has been around over 20 years. It dies every time because major lab PIs, usually in US, HATE the idea of not being able to gatekeep research publications in journals of “high impact”. This impacts how institutions are assessed, because, God forbid people actually have to read the papers. This feeds back to Editors, so the number one factor that influences Editors now is zip code.
If we went to a simple repository archive, with transparent peer review, then no one could imply their research is more important because of where it was published. We would let citations determine impact. Science publishing has always pushed the idea that if Einstein drove a Honda, everyone who drives a Honda is a genius.
Meanhile, The Lancet (JIF 105) took 12 years to retract a paper linking autism to vaccines, when it was clearly fraudulent from day one. Nature, Science, CELL, just stopped retractions, at best, they have “statements of Editorial Concern”. This high JIF model is why Alzheimers research has stalled behind a flawed hypothesis only reinforced by fraudulent work not retracted for 25 years. Some people, like the President of Stanford, rose to the top tier on fraud and journal gatekeeping.
2020 saw the world arguing over ivermectin based off a paper “reviewed” overnight, with the journal Editor as an author. The journal 5 years later refuses to prove the paper was peer reviewed at all. 3,400 citations.
Then we have predatory journals that will publish literally anything for page charges. Examples:
Get me off your fucking mailing list.
and
Chicken, chicken chicken chicken, Chicken? chicken. (Cited 35 times)
I have no clue how to improve this situation, but I appreciate this comment, especially the cited papers.
Chicken, chicken, chicken…
It’s simple. Have a central repository similar to Axriv or BioRxiv, but one step further where a manuscript is modified after peer review. The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not. It should be supported by a consortium of countries, because the world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.
The current situation is so broken, important research can get held up for YEARS by some cunt at Harvard or Stanford who wil delay the process while his/her lab catches up. Soem of these prize winners owe their careers to “inspiration” from studies they reviewed and rejected.
And only a tiny fraction of that $13B can buy a lot of lawyers, lobbyists, and favors to make sure things don’t improve.
…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?
That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv’s nice frontend is literally the stack to do it. And they have the name recognition to draw people in.
It was a game changer for chicken. Still anticipated for the first Chicken Nobel Prize. Spun off three chicken companies.
What does PI mean (first sentence of your post)?
PI are usually the professors of the lab, who are basically the managers, they write grant proposals, and the such.
Principal Investigator, the person who heads a lab. Typically a university Professor at the rank of Assistant, Associate or full Professor.