>: Anders Sandberg
> I am fond of the idea of review boards, groups or reviewers placing their
> seals of approval (or denial, for that matter) on papers without being tied
> to journals. [...] the review information might also be available
> over the net. [...]
One of my projects, THEOLIS, is about building some kind of a meta review
system, enabling anyone to easily create new private systems, or to
participate in public review systems. http://www.theolis.net/
Alongside the review, the possibility to cache, save and annotate articles
will allow to make access to articles more robust and long-lived, while
making intellectual property privileges less and less relevant.
We're currently stalled for lack of funding, though.
> What remains to be figured out is how to make this profitable
> for the reviewers (so they want to do it) without introducing risks of
> biasing them through payment.
No need to _make_ it profitable for the reviewers.
Just connect people, and let people organize naturally according
to their marginal interest.
* Some people love various topics, and will read articles, anyway.
They will provide reviews, anyway. They will need these reviews for
themselves, when they use the material in their own further works, anyway.
Let's just take advantage of it, by making it easier for them to share
information than not to share it.
* Other people want to organize into consistent committees.
More power to them. Allow them to express their collective opinions
without encurring the hassle of real paper print, and/or providing
them with the tools to handle on-demand printing.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
[ TUNES project for a Free Reflective Computing System | http://tunes.org ]
The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to apply
Turing tests to objects of its own creation.
-- Lew Mammel, Jr.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:56 MDT