JuiceCrewAllStar
Whole Milk Drinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 37,106
- Reaction score
- 9,824
nah
just people buying Swishers to roll blunts
just people buying Swishers to roll blunts
This season of the Good Place was basically a clarion call for prison reform.
Knowing nothing about scientific papers...good source? Seems like it could easily be reproduced in other states that have been legal for a little while.
Hopefully it’s just the swishers tho
SSRN appears to be a pre-print open access “journal.” That is, it is a service for publicly posting scientific research before the work has been peer reviewed and accepted by a thorough academic journal, as long as the paper meets some minimum quality standards like formatting and language. These services are increasingly popular among academics because it gets the work out there more quickly and it opens the work up to broader review more quickly, however it is posible to publish absolute crap without significant review and claim it is published science.
yeah, SSRN is a 'legit' site but not necessary well-vetted papers, as it's free/open source and pre-print
The pre-print part of it is the problem because as you say there is minimal vetting. My institution has a state policy discouraging us from publishing in these types of outlets and stating that they will not count toward promotion/tenure or annual evaluation until they are fully peer-reviewed. Open access on the other hand is a great thing for knowledge and society.
It’s not good to discourage publishing them but it is good to make sure they don’t count.
I can think of a few articles I first round on SSRN as working papers that ended up getting published later.
I think that's a pretty bad policy. Of course ultimate publication in a peer reviewed journal is the goal, but pre-prints are great for science for lots of reasons, imo. Discouraging them is silly.
I wouldn’t preprint a single thing if it’s actually groundbreaking. Sure something that’s based off a very specific cohort that would take years to form or develop may be safe but there’s too many people working on similar things that could easily scoop your findings after you preprint into an actual impactful journal.
The discouragement is not counting them until they are fully peer reviewed. University and academic communities on the whole need to update their world view and accept that preprints are actually a way to get better peer review that the old journal based approaches.
I wouldn’t preprint a single thing if it’s actually groundbreaking. Sure something that’s based off a very specific cohort that would take years to form or develop may be safe but there’s too many people working on similar things that could easily scoop your findings after you preprint into an actual impactful journal.