Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018)

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by Iv on Monday December 02, 2019 @01:14AM (#21680219)

Actually I totally botched the intent of my first message. My point is that the publication process is used as a reputation metric, which is something the research world (not science) needs. It needs it for valid purposes and using number of citations and impact factor for it is a hack that is now becoming very noisy due to the various exploits that can be made to this metric.

The publication+review+reproduction process is fine to discover scientific fact, I totally agree.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by DiogenesKynikos on Monday December 02, 2019 @04:22AM (#21681006)

You can always use PageRank instead of raw citation counts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by Iv on Tuesday December 03, 2019 @05:19AM (#21691237)

That still requires citations. Except they are now weighted. I wish there was no incentive on forcing/accepting an irrelevant citation in a paper.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by ramraj07 on Monday December 02, 2019 @05:40AM (#21681337)

NIH already does that with it's iCite initiative.

[ Parent | on HN ]