Comment on [deleted]
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks agoTo be fait, scientific publishing has been terrible for years, a deeply flawed system at multiple levels. Maybe this is the push it needs to reevaluate itself into something better.
Comment on [deleted]
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks agoTo be fait, scientific publishing has been terrible for years, a deeply flawed system at multiple levels. Maybe this is the push it needs to reevaluate itself into something better.
Tja@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
And to be even fairer, scientific reviewing hasn’t been better. Back in my PhD days, I got a paper rejected from a prestigious conference for being too simple and too complex from two different reviewers. The reviewer that argue “too simple” also gave a an example of a task that couldn’t be achieved which was clearly achievable.
Goes without saying, I’m not in academia anymore.
joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
Startups on the other hand have people pursuing ideas that have been proven to not work. The better starups mostly just sell old innovations that do work.