Dan GoodmanJun 4

The tipping point for me deciding that we should abolish scientific journals was my first experiences as an editor. It made me feel both scientifically and morally uncomfortable to be making what I felt were necessarily ill informed decisions that affected scientific progress and people's careers.

I don't think it's possible to be knowledgeable enough to quickly read a paper and understand its potential significance. But the entire system rests on this foundation.

I could also see that if I kept doing it, I'd gain confidence and it would start to feel normal, even though it was still wrong.

So instead I decided to quit those roles, and campaign for an end to scientific journals and help build new systems without the many flaws of journals.

I do believe in the value of scientific expertise, of course, but I don't think we can predict what will turn out to be important or valuable in the future. Too much of scientific culture and our institutions are based on what seems to me the palpably false assumption that we can.

Show threadscrewlisp
@neuralreckoning Do you have a particular lead on what it is that people can share that isn't publishing megacorporate journal articles? Write proofs that don't need to be vetted in some senses? What do you think of Edrx's https://anggtwu.net/e/ viz dense reuseable knowledge sharing? Or what was your direction?
e

Jun 4 at 9:31amWeb
Show threadBrad RosenheimJun 4

@screwlisp There are several journals, like those of the European Geophysical Union, which publish manuscripts online as soon as they are submitted and allow public comment. The manuscript is still reviewed by subject area experts, and those reviews are posted as comments. Authors have to address both subject area expert reviews and comments in order to get a revised version published, with a different DOI. The comments and reviews, as well as the first submitted draft, stay published.

This is similar to the preprint model, but I have noticed a paucity of public comment on these manuscripts. Some consider it rude to write an unsolicited review, however, to a system like what @neuralreckoning has in mind, that has to become the norm. I would very much like to see this sea change.

Show threadDavid Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Jun 4

@Brad_Rosenheim @screwlisp @neuralreckoning

This is absolutely the right approach. Publication should be regarded as the start of peer review, not the end.

Show thread  Jun 4

@david_chisnall @Brad_Rosenheim @screwlisp @neuralreckoning I also find it useful if reviewer identities is also public. Although double blind has its advantages, the more specific the research topic gets, the higher the chances that people recognize each other just by the topic and their writing style. Staying anonymous gives way to abuse.

We had a paper that was rejected for almost 2 years at different venues because it contradicted with claims from another research group.

Show threadDan GoodmanJun 4
@Brad_Rosenheim @screwlisp oh this is so interesting, I had no idea that some journals were already this far along with experimenting with this model. Will look into that.
Show threadBrad RosenheimJun 4

@neuralreckoning
Here is a paper that a recent Ph.D. graduate working in my research group just published. It went through several rounds of review (it was a nailbiter) but received no public comments.

https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/21/5361/2024/bg-21-5361-2024-discussion.html

@screwlisp

Deep-sea stylasterid δ18O and δ13C maps inform sampling scheme for paleotemperature reconstructions

Abstract. Deep-sea corals have the potential to provide high-resolution paleotemperature records to evaluate oceanographic changes in settings that are vulnerable to current and future ocean warming. The isotopic records preserved in coral skeletal carbonate, however, are limited by their large offsets from isotopic equilibrium with seawater. These “vital effects” are the result of biological influences (kinetic and metabolic) on the calcification of coral skeletons and are well known to drive oxygen and carbon stable isotope ratios (δ18O and δ13C, respectively) away from isotopic equilibrium with environmental variables. In this study, two calcitic stylasterid corals (Errina fissurata) are sampled via cross sections through their primary growth axes to create skeletal δ18O and δ13C maps. The maps reveal a consistent trend of increasing isotopic values toward the innermost portion of the cross sections, with minimal spatial change in carbonate mineralogy, the average center values being ∼1 ‰ and ∼3 ‰ closer to seawater δ18O and δ13C equilibrium values, respectively. We investigate possible mechanisms for these isotopic trends, including potential growth patterns that would drive spatial isotopic trends. Our results highlight the diversity of the stylasterid coral family, and because of our unique sampling strategy, we can prescribe that E. fissurata corals with minimal mineralogical variability be sampled from the center portions of their stems to achieve accurate paleotemperature reconstructions.

Show threadoldfartjmb says FREE PALESTINEJun 4

@Brad_Rosenheim @neuralreckoning @screwlisp

Hey Brad, looks like the link is broken. It takes me to a 404 error.

Show threadBrad RosenheimJun 4

@johnb48 @neuralreckoning @screwlisp

Thanks for pointing that out. I was transcribing from another screen and some students came in for a meeting, and I hit send without checking it. Will fix after dinner!

Edit: fixed link

Show threadDan GoodmanJun 4
@screwlisp the problem is that right now people should be writing megacorp journal articles because that's what other scientists read. We need to change the culture around this. For a start, we should be doing more with preprints. In the longer term we need to find new mechanisms that allow for error correction without a journal involved. That's going to be harder. My attempt (very early stages) is https://scholar.nexus/ but it's not a functional product yet, just an idea.
Scholar Nexus

Show threadVassil NikolovJun 5

@neuralreckoning @screwlisp

> the problem is that right now people should be writing megacorp journal articles because that's what other scientists read

It seems to me that we should add
... and because that counts for their careers.
Metrics, etc.
(Is impact factor still a metric of the day?
Things like SCOPUS are disproportionately significant.)

Show threadDima Pasechnik 🇺🇦 🇳🇱Jun 5

@neuralreckoning @screwlisp I don't think that e.g. mathematicians read megacorp journals much - they rather read arXiV preprints.

It's the bean counters who want these journal papers.

Show threadVassil NikolovJun 5

@dimpase @neuralreckoning @screwlisp

> the bean counters

I think in this context beans are scientometrics numbers.

Show threadDan GoodmanJun 5
@dimpase @screwlisp yeah things are better in maths and also in theoretical physics.