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

I've always hoped that the PaperBricks, http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523 model would catch on.

My summary of the idea:

There is an awful lot of redundancy and wasted effort that goes into most papers. From introductions that need to be rewritten every time (when linking to a solid introduction would be both better and less time consuming). Each piece of a piece of a full paper (intro, data, analysis, ...) could be peer-reviewed and published individually. A full paper could then be built from these paper-bricks. Anyway, recommend reading the paper as it's well written and clear.

There's also a YouTube video by the author explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sorEcLjN04.




TL;DR for PaperBricks:

"Formalize the structure of papers, such that each paper is composed of one or many (clearly marked) of the following "sections" ("bricks"):

    symbol     description             my description
    "I"     Introduction             ("domain intro")
    "PS"    Problem Statement        ("specific problem")
    "HLSI"  High-Level Solution Idea ("solution vision")
    "D"     Details                  ("solution implementation")
    "PE"    Performance Evaluation   ("benchmarks")
and each "brick" must reference one or many bricks of the same or "earlier" level, forming a global graph."

-------- >8 ---------- >8 ----------

Some of the advantages:

* no need to rephrase the same "intro" in every domain paper, just reference an existing "I" brick;

* a benchmark (PE) can just reference many "D"s;

* one can easily work "backwards" -- e.g. start with a benchmark (PE) of existing implementations and already publish it, then propose a new implementation (D);

* if someone publishes a similar paper before you, with similar "vision/idea" (HLSI), this doesn't totally destroy your publication, as you can still publish the part with an alternative implementation (D);

* "I+PS+HLSI or I+HLSI: This is what some communities call a "vision paper" [...]"

* & many more listed in the linked arxiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3523. Very nice, short and readable one, this.


Thank you for this more detailed comment. It does a nice job capturing the essentials of the paper.


I think a positive side-effect of PaperBricks idea would be full standardization of notation. It's tiring to look up meaning of variables as they differ with each author.


Thanks for this pointer. I added it to the bottom of the post.




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

Search: