yayday

5 ms·

1.
by yayday 10y ago
I'd be lying if I said the journal didn't matter strictly speaking, but in general as long as it's a "real" journal (as opposed to one of those obviously fake journals I keep getting spammed by) then I don't re
2.
by yayday 10y ago
You just described LinkedIn. A website people only update every few months/years when they're looking for a new job.
3.
by yayday 10y ago
I wasn't saying the current system is great, there's a lot wrong with it yes I agree. The impact factor thing is also a pretty silly metric to me as well, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make, albeit sarcasticall
4.
by yayday 10y ago
It was sarcasm yes but my point was that what you proposed already exists, just without the crypto currency bullsht and extra hoops to jump through. I didn't say the current system was flawless. I'm just saying your proposal is th
5.
by yayday 10y ago
> For example, giving authors / organizations a Bitcoin address where they can receive funds from individuals / organizations who want to support their research. That's a fantastic idea. Maybe we could call this "depo
6.
by yayday 10y ago
You're already moving your goalposts. Your first post said replicates the finding. If I simply post my results and someone else looks at the data and agrees with me then are they really replicating my finding or did they, oh what'
7.
by yayday 10y ago
There's already a "trustability" factor: it's called a name. When I search for a new paper and find something interesting, I look at the first author, the name of the PI, and the name of the university or laboratory asso
8.
by yayday 10y ago
What's wrong with PDFs? PDFs are great because it's a downloadable format and when I create one I know that what I see is what other people will see. The same can not be said for a website format where people use different browser