51–60 of 312 posts
I don't see why that should be a requirement. So long as papers are made available for free, why should it matter if they are also available in a paid journal?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the short answer is I don't know, and I don't think there is a single answer. Different types of scholarship need different standards and processes in my eyes. It isn't so much 'whats the alternative' to what is really a singular step as much as it is a rethink of how scholarship is performed, evaluated, rewarded, and considered. Otherwise the incentives across the playing field don't change enough to make meaning…
> -Elimination of stupid policies like 'issue lengths' The article either should be or should not be published...saying there isn't space in a given issue is insane given that >>90% of article access is online. I'd prefer to keep article lengths in place. It's easy to write a lot of text (as quite a lot of high school students understand), but it's challenging--and very important--to be able to convey information in…
I agree, in theory, with your point. I think the unfortunate thing that is lost in most efforts at concision are lack of detail rather than fluff. Fluff is bad, but I think detail is important...especially detail on how things are situated in prior literature. As a reviewer, I have often found there to be a lot of articles using 'strategic concision' to gloss over not doing things properly, or flat our not knowing what you are doing. Saying 'we used method x' means I have to trust you did it properly...or infer from other things how well you did it. Supplementary material could be a potential route here, but I just sent an article back for the second time. The first time they did the 'we did x' and I asked for more detail. The second time they said 'we did x by doing y and z'...but y and z were very very wrong.
There are places where being able to explain concepts concisely are important or a viable tactic. Journal manuscripts are (in theory) a permanent archive of new knowledge for human society and have never struck me as the place were concision is a relevant parameter.
If you know of one for CS, do comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For many STEM fields, conference talks, presentations and written contributions are notably faster and better suited to non-tenured applied researchers than the journals route.
unless the people who review their tenure cases don't count them because they are woefully out of date and out of touch. It has been amazing to come to understand just how effective the corporate takeover of universities has been in the thinking of senior faculty. I have had faculty complain about policies that they literally are the only one's empowered to change because it has never occurred to them that they actua…
Why don't people just publish through Arxiv? Is there not a discussion forum where people can post, discover, and comment on new papers? If you know of one for CS, do comment.
That's an extraordinary claim to make. I would seriously doubt the "best" profit margin cross-industries is capped at 40%.
For anyone who still doesn't know this: publishers do not pay paper authors, in any field. I am also not aware of a publisher paying peer reviewers. (Lowly soon-to-be-postdoc here; a professor would be able to say more.)
Add in that the quality of the system is massively massively broken...peer review is about as accurate as the flip of a coin. It does not promote gorund breaking or novel research, it barely (arguably doesn't) even contribute to quality research. I had a colleague recently be told by a journal editor 'we don't publish critiques from junior scholars.' So much for the nature of peer review being entirely driven by the…
What would be a good alternative to peer-review though? Genuinely interested.
Replicating researches? That's how we prove findings are not wrong or biased, usually.
Add in that the quality of the system is massively massively broken...peer review is about as accurate as the flip of a coin. It does not promote gorund breaking or novel research, it barely (arguably doesn't) even contribute to quality research. I had a colleague recently be told by a journal editor 'we don't publish critiques from junior scholars.' So much for the nature of peer review being entirely driven by the…
What would be a good alternative to peer-review though? Genuinely interested.
The top 50 research universities could get together and decide to no longer give consideration to pay-walled articles. It wouldn't affect them AT ALL...the research they do is already treated as pretty much cannon no matter where it appears. Everyone else would follow, and the journals would quickly respond with change.
Yeah I know it's unlikely but they have enough social capital to actually have an impact.