Recent Posts
- Principles of biological computation: from circadian clock to evolution
- The science and engineering of biological computation: from process to software to DNA-based neural networks
- Elements of biological computation & stochastic thermodynamics of life
- Rationality, the Bayesian mind and their limits
- Web of C-lief: conjectures vs. model assumptions vs. scientific beliefs
- Idealization vs abstraction for mathematical models of evolution
- Allegory of the replication crisis in algorithmic trading
- 668,213 views
Join 2,752 other subscribers
Contributing authors
-
Abel Molina
-
Alexandru Strimbu
-
Alexander Yartsev
-
Eric Bolo
-
David Robert Grimes
-
Forrest Barnum
-
Jill Gallaher
-
Julian Xue
-
Artem Kaznatcheev
-
Keven Poulin
-
Marcel Montrey
-
Matthew Wicker
-
Dan Nichol
-
Philip Gerlee
-
Piotr MigdaĆ
-
Robert Vander Velde
-
Rob Noble
-
Sergio Graziosi
-
Max Hartshorn
-
Thomas Shultz
-
Vincent Cannataro
-
Yunjun Yang
Poor reasons for preprints & post-publication peer-review
October 21, 2017 by Artem Kaznatcheev 2 Comments
Last week, I revived the blog with some reflections on open science. In particular, I went into the case for pre-prints and the problem with the academic publishing system. This week, I want to continue this thread by examining three common arguments for preprints: speed, feedback, and public access. I think that these arguments are often motivated in the wrong way. In their standard presentation, they are bad arguments for a good idea. By pointing out these perceived shortcoming, I hope that we can develop more convincing arguments for preprints. Or maybe methods of publication that are even better than the current approach to preprints.
These thoughts are not completely formed, and I am eager to refine them in follow up posts. As it stand, this is more of a hastily written rant.
Read more of this post
Filed under Commentary Tagged with current events, ethics and morality, philosophy of science, research tools