Hacker News Reader

Comment by unreal37 | Hacker News Reader

The scientist seems to be withholding information until her paper gets published. That seems wrong to me.

This [0] BBC article says:

> El sobrevuelo del lugar de la catástrofe y los meses de análisis fueron financiados por la revista National Geographic, que había impuesto un embargo a la divulgación de la información hasta ahora.

Which translate that National Geographic paid for everything and put an embargo (same word) on the information.

[0]: http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2015/12/151202_chile_balle...

Yes, those damn peer reviews are so annoying. I recommend using journals that don't bother to verify anything.

- Ranjit Chandra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranjit_Chandra)

It's cool; we can let a small, overworked group of people who may or may not actually be very knowledgeable in that subject peer review it first. Might as well keep the data private forever too because reproducing the work might show something different.

I was up too late and grumpy, but the peer review process (while necessary) does prevent good papers from being published in a reasonable time frame. And acceptance is closer to random than you might expect.

Here's a review of the NIPs acceptance process.

http://blog.mrtz.org/2014/12/15/the-nips-experiment.html

Stuff like arXiv is in theory very good for the actual process of science, but so is having free, accessible journals and those don't necessarily exist in every field.

Have you ever heard of post-publication peer review?

Have you ever heard of any reputable venue that does that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com