[dataflow]

> Transparent publication processes, that prevent a paper that was rejected by one journal on scientific grounds appear in another journal unchanged

This is great when reviewers are reviewing properly. But when you run into reviewers that literally don't read some parts of the paper and then object to things already addressed there, it starts backfiring. I don't know how to address this, but I'm thinking maybe making reviewer comments public without necessarily requiring a change to publish elsewhere would tackle both issues? It would seem to encourage both high quality reviews and the addressing of those reviews.

[d110af5ccf]

I agree with the sentiment, but I think "branding" a paper that was rejected in any way whatsoever would make things worse on the whole. The ability to try again seems to be an important part of the (admittedly imperfect) peer review process. (Relevant caricature: http://matt.might.net/articles/peer-fortress)

[dataflow]

Interesting, yeah, I don't know how to solve it. It's a tough problem. (And that link is hilarious and too accurate, thanks.)

[spicybright]

Maybe we need to start putting brown M&Ms into research papers /s

https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9

[perl4ever]

I haven't gotten any M&Ms in a while, but I feel like long ago there were two shades of brown and more recently only one.

Also, whatever happened to blonde Oreos with chocolate filling? I know they existed once, but every time I'm the grocery store I check and they're not one of the dozens of flavors.

[spicybright]

I THINK those were labeled Uh oh oreos. I'm almost 99% positive they're still in stores regularly. I live in north east US.