|
|
|
|
|
|
by dr_dshiv
1379 days ago
|
|
|
If you like, you can link me to a paper you know well and I’ll send a review based on gpt3, without reading it. You can tell me if it is sensible. I rather like the frontiers review process as a gatekeeping process. Papers get much better through their interactive review.
But I don’t think peer review should stop with publication. I think there is a need to rate and rank and otherwise gather sentiments from researchers on papers in their field —ideally in a manner that allows for new important work to surface more easily. Whether the goal is to make science human and machine readable, for the further advancement of science. There is going to be a lot of science. * check this out: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02787-5 |
|
|
I think what I'm building in peer-review.io actually achieves this. Because I've split out the two functions of review into pre-publication review and post-publication integrity management.
Pre-publication review is entirely about helping authors improve their work. It's rather akin to a Github PR.
Post-publication integrity management happens through voting and responses. More akin to StackExchange. Votes require responses, though responses don't require votes. That part is all public and on going. If you vote on a paper based on reading it, and then later discover its fraudulent in some way, you can come back and change your vote and edit your response. Both review and voting/response stay with the paper in perpetuity.
Also, thanks for the link, I'll give it a read!