pull down to refresh

127 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Dec \ on: Journal pays peer reviewers in cryptocurrency science
I think perhaps even more important than paying reviewers, may be allowing replication studies to be considered solid, publishable research that builds towards a person's tenure and promotion case.
The review process is too time consuming and difficult to do properly that I'm not sure any amount of payment would lead to sufficient investigatory work.
The true check and balance in academia is whether or not a result can be replicated in future studies. Thus, replication should be encouraged.
Edit: Another thing I think may be important is allowing null results to be publishable, as long as the methodology is solid.
write
preview
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 12 Dec
Funny, this random post keeps me thinking. I wonder if there is a good way to do this:
  • good research
  • quality referee service
  • minimal cost to the reader (few sats?)
  • minimal cost to the authors
  • quality editing services
  • minimal rent-seeking costs
  • difficulty to game the system
  • ...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 12 Dec
Probably not, lol. I think that knowledge, being non-rivalrous and non-excludable, is difficult to produce by via standard market mechanisms.
There's a theorem in economics known as Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which sets bounds on what kinds of social objectives are achievable in settings with diverse preferences but a single choice that must be made affecting everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an analogous theorem for knowledge production.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 12 Dec
I was looking last time to publish negative results. The only journals i could find for this had very high APC and doubtful reputation (short of being predatory). We didn't publish, unfortunately.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 12 Dec
The review process is too time consuming and difficult to do properly that I'm not sure any amount of payment would lead to sufficient investigatory work.
Yah, this probably would incentivise reviewers to do sloppy work so they can make as much money as possible. 150 dollar per paper can quickly become profitable depending on the country.
There should be a way to improve this business model while enhancing ethical behaviour, but it's a difficult balancing game.
reply