LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 12 Feb 2024 21:16:41 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1038 bytes) , text/html (1999 bytes)
From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:34:31 -0800

Paid reviewers, Thomas? Excellent idea.

But who are the "reviewers who write no papers themselves"? Emeriti? Not
sure one can be unbiased even if s/he sees the work that goes against their
own former writings.

In fact, your proposal reminds of the Paradox of the Barber "who
shaves only those who don't shave themselves". Such a person does not exist
after all.

Ari Belenkiy

Vancouver BC
Canada

On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 1:06 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Thomas Krichel <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 18:26:09 +0000
>
> Rick Anderson writes
>
> > Given the hard data cited in the article, I felt like the tone of writing
> > was actually oddly calm.
>
> I agree. And beyond that, I suggest that the idea that science can be
> self-policing is on life support. We need paid reviewers, who write no
> papers, so that they are have unbiased incentives.
>
> --  Written by Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel on his
> 21434th day.
>


ATOM RSS1 RSS2