Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> my proposal of paying reviewers and replicators addresses [all concerns]

Your other comment didn't say who might be paying reviewers. Journals clearly won't (why should they, they have grrat profits in the current system and will fight tooth and nail to delay any changes whatever). Universities and even funding agencies cannot (conflict of interest).

> Is the search engine going to do a better job than peer review of presenting you the papers you actually want to read?

I do actually expect to see that happen.




> Your other comment didn't say who might be paying reviewers.

In the parent comment to this thread, I talk about this. My proposal is that when a researcher writes up the grant to get their research funded, they should estimate how much it would cost to pay reviewers and replicators, and include those figures in the cost.

If the researcher gets the grant approved, then the funding agency will put the money for peer review/replication into escrow. When the research is finished and the investigators have written up a paper to describe their methods and results, the money in escrow is disbursed to the reviewers and replicators.

If reviewers agree its good, and if it replicates, then the paper is published. If not, well we just dodged a bullet.

> I do actually expect to see that happen.

Are search engines getting better or worse for you? It was a lot easier getting the right paper from a search engine 10 years ago. Now, you just get half a page of irrelevant ads, and another half page of links boosted by payola.

Just imagine what it will be like when there are literally MILLIONS of bad papers for each good paper. Then Billions. There is no finite limit to the amount of bullshit that LLMs can--and therefore will--output.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: