Peers – robots

In my previous post I was a bit harsh on the concept of "peer".

Not regretting that, but the problem of "AI" seems shockingly rampant. Not conformity or group think, but right out cheating! I guess it is made possible with the huge expansion of number of publications?

For some years I thought that a good way to publish is on one's own domain, or maybe one's institution's web page. Of course after informal peer critique. Better than an obscure journal out of 1000s? Also, you do not have to send around your paper and wait for some feedback, or approval. If you are using the paper e.g. in a future book of yours, you would not need approval, except your own judgement. Furthermore, if anyone uses your article as reference, anyone can read it.

Then the review is more public, feedback can be instant, and one can even correct stuff, with appropriate logging of changes. Or archive the old one and replace it, with clear info of what the changes are. A more open source way of publishing, maybe? "Naked" publishing. That said, long term support versions, not rolling releases! 😛

Or use Might be others, too?

I do not write science, I blather on my own space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *