Science Memes

14937 readers

1784 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

970

Elsevier (mander.xyz)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

154 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jocker 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If we build a decentralized system for paper publishing, like lemmy based on activitypub.. will it work?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Probably won't take off because scientists need reputable journals and not some random fediverse publishers.

Is it fucked up? Absolutely. But something else needs to be changed before this would be possible.

Also, why not ditch the concept of a "publisher" to begin with? Why not have a national or international article index, graded by the article level? It's not that we live in a paper era, and for those who still need it, we can always print.

[–] Jocker 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, a decentralized platform would only make an index and universities or institutions can maintain their own instances

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

This I generally approve, if availability is good enough

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well, we could assign the reviewers more "significance" here. We could give them points and if they "upvote" a paper it gives the paper a bit more visibility/reputation. If the reviewer has actually reviewed the paper it gives the paper more points.

How much a reviewer is able to "spend" could be based on the reputation of the institution, their own papers in the same field and the points they get for their reviews by other users.

Just a raw idea,but it seems possible, indeed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Interesting concept for an open collaboration!

Should also address the misuse of the points when some large researcher doesn't care to peer review and may give power to someone else, or hacking leading to spending of points, or whatever threats there can be