Comment on Keep them guessing
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 days ago
I imagine this would be the most efficient way to do science if it weren’t for the effectiveness of collaboration that, regrettably, demands the presentational overhead.
Comment on Keep them guessing
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 days ago
I imagine this would be the most efficient way to do science if it weren’t for the effectiveness of collaboration that, regrettably, demands the presentational overhead.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
What if there was a bunch of lemmy instances for scientists to post journals on and the other scientists could up/downvote and roast the other scientists work publicly.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 days ago
I’m down. Honestly, hard to do worse than the publisher scam we’re railroading now.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I think it would work nicely if each public university had their own instance. Since it’s government owned, it would be illegal for them to censor other scientists. I guess if the public university web was big ebough, they could make private universities and other institutions agree to be censorship free, plus moderation would be transparent and in the open. Not sure how moderation would work exactly, it should be fairly self regulating if users are exclusively credentialled experts with real names attatched to their accounts.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub 2 days ago
The very last part may be the most difficult in the current iteration of the www, but numerous proposed solutions are viable (including one by sir berners-lee himself) and I’m all for it.
thevoidzero@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ve had this idea that we should have server dedicated to people just putting their research. Other people can review and get responses/improve it. People new to science and students can reproduce the results and validate them. And of course we can have upvotes system (i worry about this as everyone have same weight of vote seems dumb, so maybe everyone gets points for contributions and votes are based on the person’s credibility/points).
Our current system is too expensive and only profitable to journal systems. We could make a system where people can donate when they submit a paper and the money goes to reviewer/server/papers they cited, etc. and we lack reproducing results because there’s no credit, giving credit for that would encourage learning and make sure papers are reproducible. If a lot of people tried and can’t reproduce it, we can doubt the results.
GrumpyDuckling@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
An equal points voting system is the best way to come to the truth between a group of people, but they all have to be honest with their oppinions, which can make it fall apart if there are outside forces pressuring voters. If you have a jar of marbles and have a room full of people try to guess how many there are, the guesses will generally average out to the correct answer. If you had a group of marble and math experts guessing, then it would be extremely close, unless you let them debate about it first.