“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag questionable papers?”

Re:“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag q... by bittercynic on Sunday August 28, 2022 @11:26AM (#32629115)

Instead of a flagging system ranking the credibility of papers once for everyone, can we have a system where each user decides which other users they trust to evaluate papers, and ignore any signal from untrusted users?

For example, I could L1 trust people to evaluate papers and the trustworthiness of other users, and L2 trust others only to evaluate the trustworthiness of papers. If I notice a spurious signal getting in, I can find out who it came from and prune my list of trusted users.

I imagine I'm not the first to think of this. Anyone know of reading material on the topic?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag q... by jpeloquin on Sunday August 28, 2022 @03:09PM (#32631094)

Sounds like journal clubs but organized through a specialized tech platform rather than normal communication channels.

(Journal clubs are groups of people, usually working in the same field, who pick & present a paper to the rest of the group on an rotating basis.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Is there a heuristic we might use to identify and flag q... by abstractalgo on Sunday August 28, 2022 @01:05PM (#32629961)

The one thing I'm aware of is Brave's Goggles project: https://search.brave.com/help/goggles - it basically allows you to set up your own ranking algorithm with a specific syntax (it links to Github repo and, there, to a white paper).

I haven't seen more attempts at similar things, which doesn't mean they don't exist though. (There were mentions of a similar feature being added when Elon Musk was about to buy Twitter, but just gossips)

[ Parent | on HN ]