1. Bitcoin is destroying the planet
2. Reviewing papers is unrecognised and unrewarded
So (and hear me out here)
3. We invent a new cryptocurrency which you 'mine' by contributing quality reviews of the literature
2. Reviewing papers is unrecognised and unrewarded
So (and hear me out here)
3. We invent a new cryptocurrency which you 'mine' by contributing quality reviews of the literature
APCs for journal articles are replaced with KudosCoin fees, which you can either generate by reviewing or buy off people who do
The thought being that escape from both the tyranny of metrics and the prestige economy - whether impact factors or Instagram likes - is impossible, so we should at least ground it on the true basis of scholarly life, the gold standard of peer review
Side effects
- the enormous untapped energy of the rationalist/"someone is wrong on the internet" community is redirected into writing paper reviews
- statistical and methodological critique is fun again
- the enormous untapped energy of the rationalist/"someone is wrong on the internet" community is redirected into writing paper reviews
- statistical and methodological critique is fun again
(obviously I'm kidding
statistical and methodological critique was always fun, and always will be)
statistical and methodological critique was always fun, and always will be)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
