Comment

SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

It’s simple. Have a central repository similar to Axriv or BioRxiv, but one step further where a manuscript is modified after peer review. The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not. It should be supported by a consortium of countries, because the world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.

source

Sort:hotnew top

RobertoOberto@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.

And only a tiny fraction of that $13B can buy a lot of lawyers, lobbyists, and favors to make sure things don’t improve.

source
brucethemoose@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.

…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?

That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv’s nice frontend is literally the stack to do it, with few modifications, and they have reputation.

source