Several things that can all be true at once:
1. Open access publishing is important
2. Peer review is not perfect
3. Community-based vetting of research is key
4. A system for by-passing such vetting muddies the scientific information ecosystem
1. Open access publishing is important
2. Peer review is not perfect
3. Community-based vetting of research is key
4. A system for by-passing such vetting muddies the scientific information ecosystem
Yes, this is both a subtweet of arXiv and of every time anyone cites an actually reviewed & published paper by just pointing to its arXiv version, just further lending credibility to all the nonsense that people "publish" on arXiv and then race to read & promote.
Shout out to the amazing @aclanthology which provides open access publishing for most #compling / #NLProc venues and to all the hardworking folks within ACL reviewing & looking to improve the reviewing process.
Citing a paper that's available through the @aclanthology by pointing to an arXiv version instead is at least the equivalent of putting something recyclable in the landfill, if not equivalent to littering. Small actions that contribute to the degradation of the environment.
@aclanthology Meanwhile, Google Scholar pointing to arXiv versions first is like ... governments providing subsidies to oil companies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
