[btrettel]

To me, publishing seems outside of the minimum viable product. I would like to see many changes to publishing, but I think those would be best handled later when independent research is better established.

Publishing is a chicken or egg type problem. At the moment few will use your publishing venue unless it has a certain reputation. But you can't develop a reputation unless your publishing venue is used often.

A publishing venue could be differentiated with unique features, e.g., open access, anonymous publishing option, more rigorous peer review, or more favorable copyright terms (I'm in favor of authors keeping copyright and just licensing the paper), for example. I'm not certain if these features would be enough to overcome the reputation disadvantage.

Perhaps independent researchers should forget about people who care so much about reputation (who probably wouldn't go independent anyway) and instead focus on making a better product.

[sleepyams]

I think this is actually a really great point about making a better product. One could venture to ask: is the reputation system within the scientific institution intimately linked the notion of natural truth? If so, does focusing on approaching science from the lens of product development signify a shift in the notion of what science is about?

I'm a PhD student in math currently and I often wonder what the difference really is between the creation and discovery of mathematical ideas. It seems the difference is really a matter of perspective: are we trying to discover something true or create something useful? Often these two perspectives intersect.

[btrettel]

I don't think academics are incentived to publish truth in general. In my field (fluid dynamics), researchers seem to focus on producing as many papers as possible that sound good but may have problems beneath the surface. This may be different in math, because the standards are much higher.

The distinction between whether science or math creates or discovers truths is philosophical and not something I'm that interested in.

My goal is to publish papers as likely to be true or useful as possible. So thinking about this in terms of "product development" is really just about increasing the chance of discovering the truth. (Or developing a useful model, which may not be strictly true but is a good approximation of the truth. As an engineer, what I do is more likely to be in the latter category.)