No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper”

Re:No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper” by spacefearing on Monday May 04, 2020 @12:05PM (#23069671)

Sounds like we need better heuristics. It doesn't make sense to ignore research papers based on their origin.

Each paper should be evaluated on its merits. A system with submission, voting, and comments (HN/reddit) is a good way to filter the wheat from the chaff. It's hard to believe this basic technology hasn't reached the scientific fields.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper” by ar0 on Monday May 04, 2020 @12:16PM (#23069847)

They have. It's called "peer review". It is just that peer review is a slow process, so it doesn't really work in a fast-moving crisis environment.

Part of peer review being a slow process may be fixable (although it is difficult to compel unpaid, volunteering reviewers to adhere to strict deadlines), but part of peer review being a slow process is specifically that if you do not want to rely on heuristics such as author credentials you need to take the time to really analyze a paper to avoid falling into the traps mentioned in the original article (confirmation bias, being misled by an authoritative tone etc.). And HN/Reddit votes IMHO are definitely not a good example of avoiding any of these.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:No, I won't read your amateur Covid-19 “research paper” by eloisant on Monday May 04, 2020 @12:20PM (#23069912)

Voting doesn't ensure that the most accurate comment/submission will show up on top, instead a wrong but popular claim (as "many people agree with it") can easily get to the top.

That happens all the time on HN and Reddit.

[ Parent | on HN ]