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

great post.

I've also spent a lot of time thinking about this problem and would like to eventually put some work towards it. A couple of additional ideas that I've had:

* A paper could rely on a critical reference to build upon and the referenced paper could be disproven down the line but this is not immediately obvious from the paper that used it.

* Currently it doesn't seem like any merit is given to researchers who are very good at reviewing papers. Compare this to software where a good code review is celebrated. Editing and cleaning up the state of science should be valued when scientists are looking for work so I think that something along the line of a Github CV for scientists would be valuable.




Good journals honor great referees by listing them on an annual accounting of Outstanding Referees:

http://journals.aps.org/OutstandingReferees


Thanks for this. I now quote those points at the bottom of the post.




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

Search: