Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C: study from 2018

Re:Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2... by mjfl on Sunday January 17, 2021 @06:18PM (#25816292)

There are plenty of other options, the one I'll focus on is already is in widespread use: science seems to progress fine using only preprints. It is the norm in physics and becoming the norm for biology to read the preprint of a paper long before it is published in a journal. Official peer review adds very little value over this system.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2... by Rochus on Sunday January 17, 2021 @06:24PM (#25816332)

But it cannot always remain a preprint; at some point the author must decide on the definitive version and publish it; citing a preprint is also problematic if it is in fact a "moving target"; preprints, however, have a decisive advantage: one has published more quickly and can make subsequent corrections.

EDIT: Preprints are actually not a replacement, but essentially loosen the submission deadline and increase the number of (potential) reviewers. But even with this, many disadvantages you criticise still exist; the public reviewers not appointed by the publisher can also be wrong, and the outcry of indignation can be so loud that the author's superiors enforce a withdrawal of the publication.

[ Parent | on HN ]