Timeline for Doesn't science have a better reputation system than Stack Overflow?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2010 at 10:13 | vote | accept | RomanSt | ||
| Sep 18, 2010 at 22:37 | comment | added | Brad Larson | @dmckee - True, but both use panels of established researchers to vote up or down papers or proposals. It's not really a weighted voting system as suggested, but one that only lets those above a certain threshold vet these items. This can lead to suppression of new researchers as well as new ideas, and present plenty of opportunities for conflicts of interest. | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 20:54 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | Hmmm...two different peer review processes here. Paper review occurs at the journal/conference level and does favor an in-group, but not so stiffly as the grant proposal system. This is at least in part because proposal review is a government/business/non-profit monetary tracking and due diligence issue. /also working scientist | |
| Sep 18, 2010 at 20:49 | history | answered | Brad Larson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |