Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by godelski on Saturday July 29, 2023 @02:14PM (#36922942)

Yeah, this is a hill I will die on. I love researching, but once I grab my PhD I do not plan to push to journals/conferences unless it is requested in a job. It just holds no meaning and I'm tired of pretending it does. Perpetuating the system harms my fellow researchers, kills innovation, and just kicks the growing can down the road.

The other hill I will die on is that we shouldn't refer to journal/conference publishing as "peer review." This is one form of peer review, but there are MANY more. And as far as I'm concerned, 3 randos that briefly skim my paper in an adversarial setting (zero sum) looking to reject works barely constitutes peer review. Peer review is what happens when your peers read your work, test it, build upon it, replicate it, etc. We need to stop this language because it helps no one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by cryptonector on Sunday July 30, 2023 @12:09AM (#36927723)

> Peer review is what happens when your peers ...

I would add: when your peers' review commentary is public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by godelski on Sunday July 30, 2023 @03:47AM (#36928838)

I love when this happens tbh, but it is rather rare. Often I can tell that a paper was rejected for dumb reasons and that gives me a good signal to actually read it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Argonne National Lab is attempting to replicate LK-99 by xorbax on Sunday July 30, 2023 @02:12PM (#36934203)

Yeah, most of peer review is private

If journals posted first-submission comments for published papers I think there's be a radical change in comments. For good or ill, I have no idea.

[ Parent | on HN ]