You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Pevo whitepaper public release (+ teaser site)
Make sure to incorporate some sort of peer-review process. Its not a perfect system, but it does aide in reducing the number of articles that are just plain poor science. I have reviewed quite a few that I found astonishing someone felt was acceptable. With out any sort of peer review there would be no check to ensure some sort of base level of quality to the published work.
Low quality papers will get identified quickly when we passed a certain userbase threshold. The scientific crowd can evaluate a paper a lot better and more dynamic than simple peer reviews.
The whole platform will work very similar to steemit, but with a seperate curation system. Every account will be connected to a real life person, and we let them do whatever they think is best. It's their work, and their reputation. We can't let someone else decide for them what's good or not.
Filter functions will allow everyone to create their own bubble when necessary.
I also think bad or even outright hilarious papers and their metadata like votes, voters and comments may provide interesting data in some ways.
In general I do not know for certain that the general scientific community possesses the specialization necessary to accurately judge the quality of all published works outside of their field of interest. While I am interested in a decentralized paper publication platform, I do not know that it would be able to effectively curate articles of actual quality, and would focus more on those with more flashy and easy to digest conclusions. In all it is a worth while experiment to see how the results would turnout, however I remain skeptical (as any scientist worth their weight should be, a healthy dose of skepticism keeps work judged fairly).