I don't see how this system can do that. I stopped caring about Stack Overflow up- and down-votes long ago, I've grown tired of reading stories about the background politics and voting for Wikipedia, I can easily see how the proposed system can be gamed, and I don't see how it can defend against systemic gender, racial, or other social biases.
> for the simple reason that they want that help themselves when it comes time to for them to publish
Which leads to collusion. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
My reviews are anonymous. I want to make it harder to retaliate against me, and make it harder to use what authority I've gained to influence things, and I trust the editors to mediate.
> review is not refereeing
Shrug. Okay. The question is, why do people want to get points? If it's good to get points, then there will be collusion to get those points.
> the post-publish refereeing system will help incentivize people to take critical feedback seriously
I have not found that system to be all that effective.
> Seems maybe you would argue in favor of requiring responses on all votes?
That is not my argument. I don't know one way or the other. I observed that "transparency" is described as being important for negative votes, but with no reason given why it's not also important for positive ones.
> We don't want it to be an overlay, because we want to ultimately replace the system.
The advocacy objects to a system with "high fees", "paywalls", "pay-to-play", etc.
Preprint servers don't have fees, paywall, or pay-to-play.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect you want to replace preprint servers, nor reason for why it's important to do so.
> None of the attempts to break the current system
How much do you know about eLife and Michael Eisen?
How hard is it to get a waiver for the $3000 fee? "To ensure that eLife’s publication fee is not a barrier to publication we therefore offer a simple way for authors to apply for a fee waiver." https://reviewer.elifesciences.org/author-guide/fees#elife-p...
It's also hard understand what you mean by "the current system", since I didn't realize pre-print servers were part of it. eLife requires preprint publication to bioRxiv or medRxiv.
> there are a lot of them
My question isn't "how does someone well-informed in all the different options choose yours?" but rather "given that most people aren't well-informed about the different options, why would they think to publish using your project?"
I don't see how this system can do that. I stopped caring about Stack Overflow up- and down-votes long ago, I've grown tired of reading stories about the background politics and voting for Wikipedia, I can easily see how the proposed system can be gamed, and I don't see how it can defend against systemic gender, racial, or other social biases.
> for the simple reason that they want that help themselves when it comes time to for them to publish
Which leads to collusion. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."
My reviews are anonymous. I want to make it harder to retaliate against me, and make it harder to use what authority I've gained to influence things, and I trust the editors to mediate.
> review is not refereeing
Shrug. Okay. The question is, why do people want to get points? If it's good to get points, then there will be collusion to get those points.
> the post-publish refereeing system will help incentivize people to take critical feedback seriously
I have not found that system to be all that effective.
> Seems maybe you would argue in favor of requiring responses on all votes?
That is not my argument. I don't know one way or the other. I observed that "transparency" is described as being important for negative votes, but with no reason given why it's not also important for positive ones.
> We don't want it to be an overlay, because we want to ultimately replace the system.
The advocacy objects to a system with "high fees", "paywalls", "pay-to-play", etc.
Preprint servers don't have fees, paywall, or pay-to-play.
Thus, there is no reason to suspect you want to replace preprint servers, nor reason for why it's important to do so.
> None of the attempts to break the current system
How much do you know about eLife and Michael Eisen?
How hard is it to get a waiver for the $3000 fee? "To ensure that eLife’s publication fee is not a barrier to publication we therefore offer a simple way for authors to apply for a fee waiver." https://reviewer.elifesciences.org/author-guide/fees#elife-p...
It's also hard understand what you mean by "the current system", since I didn't realize pre-print servers were part of it. eLife requires preprint publication to bioRxiv or medRxiv.
> there are a lot of them
My question isn't "how does someone well-informed in all the different options choose yours?" but rather "given that most people aren't well-informed about the different options, why would they think to publish using your project?"