2 years ago • •
Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.
![“Peer reviewed vs. unrefereed” is purposely excluded as an axis of communication tools, as the ability to review and annotate multiple versions of a document — subject to the context of the medium — should be a basic part of any communication system. Fear over losing the at once immutable but also paradoxically fragile ecosystem of journal-led peer review is one of the first strawmen that stops consideration of radically reorganizing scientific communication66. The belief that peer review as we know it is an intrinsic part of science is ahistorical (eg. [255]), and the belief that journal-led peer review is somehow a unique venue for evaluating scientific work ignores the immense quantity of criticism and discussion that happens in almost every communicative context, scientific and otherwise. The notion that the body of scientific knowledge is best curated by passing each paper through a gauntlet of three anonymous reviewers, after which it becomes Fact is ridiculous on its face. Focusing on preserving peer review is a red herring that unnecessarily constrains the possible forms of scientific communication. Instead we will try and sketch systems that address the needs for communication and knowledge organization left unmet precisely because of the primacy of peer reviewed journal publications.](https://keybored.me/photo/preview/640/1120120 "“Peer reviewed vs. unrefereed” is purposely excluded as an axis of communication tools, as the ability to review and annotate multiple versions of a document — subject to the context of the medium — should be a basic part of any communication system. Fear over losing the at once immutable but also paradoxically fragile ecosystem of journal-led peer review is one of the first strawmen that stops consideration of radically reorganizing scientific communication66. The belief that peer review as we know it is an intrinsic part of science is ahistorical (eg. [255]), and the belief that journal-led peer review is somehow a unique venue for evaluating scientific work ignores the immense quantity of criticism and discussion that happens in almost every communicative context, scientific and otherwise. The notion that the body of scientific knowledge is best curated by passing each paper through a gauntlet of three anonymous reviewers, after which it becomes Fact is ridiculous on its face. Focusing on preserving peer review is a red herring that unnecessarily constrains the possible forms of scientific communication. Instead we will try and sketch systems that address the needs for communication and knowledge organization left unmet precisely because of the primacy of peer reviewed journal publications.")