Have the papers gotten that good or bad?

candiddevmike 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've seen quite a few preprints posted on HN with clearly fantastical claims that only seem to reinforce or ride the coattails of the current hype cycle. It's no longer research, it's becoming "top of funnel thought leadership".

	▲	nunez 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Resume Driven Development, Academia Edition

▲

Sharlin 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yep, so good that they have to be specifically reviewed because otherwise people wouldn’t believe how good they are.

▲

Maken 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Actual papers are as good as ever. This is just trying to stop the flood of autogenated slop, if anything because arXiv hosting space is not free.

▲

physarum_salad 5 days ago | parent [-]

It is actually great because it shows how well it works as a system. Screening is really important to keep preprint quality high enough to then implement cool ideas like random peer review/automated reviews etc

▲

JumpCrisscross 5 days ago | parent [-]

> we are developing a whole new method to do peer review

What’s the new method?

	▲	physarum_salad 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I mean generally working towards changing how peer review works. For example: https://prereview.org/en-us Anecdotally, a lot of researchers will run their paper pdfs through an AI iteration or two during drafting which also (kinda but not really) counts as a self-review. Although that is not comparable to peer review ofc.