11–20 of 22 posts
Surprising: according to https://hn.algolia.com/ Mathematica-journal and "Mathematica-journal" was only cited twice here, and never on submissions. I feel like we missed something.
37 titles referencing Mathematica, though all appear to be the software.
When I first saw this, I thought "Maybe they are cruising arXiv for new papers?" They aren't. BUT, I would love to see something like this happen for all science journals: 1. You post a paper to arXiv (or equivalent for your field). 2. Preliminary review by whoever is interested (and is qualified to publish on arXiv themselves) 3. Interested editors of various journals contact you with a list of proposed in-depth rev…
When I first saw this, I thought "Maybe they are cruising arXiv for new papers?" They aren't. BUT, I would love to see something like this happen for all science journals: 1. You post a paper to arXiv (or equivalent for your field). 2. Preliminary review by whoever is interested (and is qualified to publish on arXiv themselves) 3. Interested editors of various journals contact you with a list of proposed in-depth rev…
My dream would be arxiv hosting a reddit-style upvote/downvote discussion thread for every paper. I've seen this work beautifully on some science subreddits, as well as on Scot Aaranson and Terence Tao's blogs. It can really help flesh out problems/questions, generate intelligent discussion, and even lead to cooperation between participants on further research. One requirement for it to work is strong moderation to k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a job for a dedicated Lemmy/kbin instance
Maybe, but you really want all the discussion easily discoverable and in a central authoritative place to encourage experts in the field to find and join the conversation.
When I first saw this, I thought "Maybe they are cruising arXiv for new papers?" They aren't. BUT, I would love to see something like this happen for all science journals: 1. You post a paper to arXiv (or equivalent for your field). 2. Preliminary review by whoever is interested (and is qualified to publish on arXiv themselves) 3. Interested editors of various journals contact you with a list of proposed in-depth rev…
My dream would be arxiv hosting a reddit-style upvote/downvote discussion thread for every paper. I've seen this work beautifully on some science subreddits, as well as on Scot Aaranson and Terence Tao's blogs. It can really help flesh out problems/questions, generate intelligent discussion, and even lead to cooperation between participants on further research. One requirement for it to work is strong moderation to k…
[1] https://scirate.com/arxiv/quant-ph (go to previous day to see more scites)
When I first saw this, I thought "Maybe they are cruising arXiv for new papers?" They aren't. BUT, I would love to see something like this happen for all science journals: 1. You post a paper to arXiv (or equivalent for your field). 2. Preliminary review by whoever is interested (and is qualified to publish on arXiv themselves) 3. Interested editors of various journals contact you with a list of proposed in-depth rev…
When I first saw this, I thought "Maybe they are cruising arXiv for new papers?" They aren't. BUT, I would love to see something like this happen for all science journals: 1. You post a paper to arXiv (or equivalent for your field). 2. Preliminary review by whoever is interested (and is qualified to publish on arXiv themselves) 3. Interested editors of various journals contact you with a list of proposed in-depth rev…
That wouldn’t work with double blind review. It would simply entrench the already popular researchers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My dream would be arxiv hosting a reddit-style upvote/downvote discussion thread for every paper. I've seen this work beautifully on some science subreddits, as well as on Scot Aaranson and Terence Tao's blogs. It can really help flesh out problems/questions, generate intelligent discussion, and even lead to cooperation between participants on further research. One requirement for it to work is strong moderation to k…
ArXiv has deliberately left the implementation of such systems to others. There's nothing stopping anyone from making such an overlay, should they choose to do so (and many have tried).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a job for a dedicated Lemmy/kbin instance
Maybe, but you really want all the discussion easily discoverable and in a central authoritative place to encourage experts in the field to find and join the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ArXiv has deliberately left the implementation of such systems to others. There's nothing stopping anyone from making such an overlay, should they choose to do so (and many have tried).
The problem that you get then is fragmentation. Everybody will be on a different service, and the discussions don't get off the ground.
2 and 3 are self-reinforcing effects -- why does Nature attract prestigious papers? Because it publishes prestigious papers. Why does Nature attract high-quality research? Because it is full of high-quality research.
All of this is to say that it is likely that, given a distribution of reasonably-edited arXiv-overlay journals, there's a pretty good chance that just a few of them in any given field (or at large) will attract most of the serious work