A Few Bad Scientists Are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy

Re:A Few Bad Scientists Are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy by Vinnl on Friday September 08, 2017 @12:17PM (#15201494)

> That definition leaves room for what few would call science: self-publishing. (...) “No other field of science, other than taxonomy, is subject to allowing people to self-publish.”

Actually, the sharing of non-peer-reviewed works (preprints) is fairly common in STEM, and is spreading to other disciplines [0]. The main difference is that they usually on to be peer-reviewed - although not always.

That said, I'm not sure if the solution would be to only allow peer-reviewed work in the taxonomy, as defining what is proper peer review is difficult as well. For example, there are plenty of predatory journals that will arrange a rather symbolic peer review process for you as long as you pay.

But it's an interesting problem, to say the least.

[0] https://cos.io/about/news/six-new-preprint-services-join-gro...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Few Bad Scientists Are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy by MereInterest on Friday September 08, 2017 @12:47PM (#15201781)

While sharing of pre-prints is commonly done, nothing official is ever done based on non-reviewed studies. If they are later published, then the pre-prints are treated equivalently, because they have the same data. However, pre-prints that do not make it through peer review, or conclusions that exist within a pre-print but are removed in the final version, are treated as non-existent.

It seems reasonable to treat taxonomy with the same rigor. If you can't convince your peers that you found something new, why should you get the distinction of making the name for it?

[ Parent | on HN ]