Home
> Uncategorized > Vote! Pro or con about having comments in future OA journals?
Vote! Pro or con about having comments in future OA journals?
The vote is anonymous.
UPDATE: Amazing, there are so many views and almost nobody votes.
See the discussion about this subject at Gowers “Good guys” post. See also the tag comments in epijournals at this blog.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Each blog post by chorasimilarity is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://imar.ro/~mbuliga/.
Most viewed lately
- New discussion on UD (updated)
- MMORPGames at the knowledge frontier
- Digital Materialization, Euclideon and Fractal Image Compression
- Diorama, Myriorama, Unlimited detail-orama
- Teaser: 2D UD
- Unlimited detail and 3D portal engines, or else real-time path tracing
- Unlimited detail, software point cloud renderers
- (Graphic) beta rule as braiding
- Unlimited detail is a sorting algorithm
- Unlimited detail challenge: the most easy formulation
- Gamifying peer-review?
- Animals in lambda calculus
Daily clicks
approximate structures
Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula
beta reduction
boycott Elsevier
comments in epijournals
computation
computing with space
cost of knowledge
curvature
decorated tangles
emergent algebra
epijournals
euclideon
extended beta move
fight plagiarism
gnomon
graphic beta move
graphic lambda calculus
greek philosophy
Gromov-Hausdorff distance
group theory
Heisenberg group
infinitesimal
JVSP
knot diagrams
lambda calculus
map is the territory
mathematics
metric spaces
open access
open peer review
peer community
philosophy of mind
plagiarism
reidemeister moves
Romania
spacebook
spaces with dilations
sub-riemannian geometry
tutorial
Uncategorized
uniform structure
unlimited detail
untyped lambda calculus
vision
Blogs I Follow
- Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week #AcademicSpring
- Science to Grok
- Digifesto
- isomorphismes
- DIANABUJA'S BLOG: Africa, the Middle East, Agriculture, History & Culture
- Retraction Watch
- Shtetl-Optimized
- Not Even Wrong
- Theoretical Atlas
- Azimuth
- Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP
- Noncommutative Analysis
- Gowers's Weblog
- Research and Lecture notes
- Calculus VII
- The "Putnam Program"
- What's new
Recent Posts
- Democratic changes in OA can be only reactive. We need daring private initiatives
- Freedom sector of graphic lambda calculus
- The good, the bad and the iawful: OA, measures of scientific output and bad legislation
- Sets, lists and order of moves in graphic lambda calculus
- We, researchers, just need a medium for social interaction, and some apps
- Graphic lambda calculus used for quantum programming (Towards qubits III)
- I have a question about this idea of mixing games with peer-reviews
- What group is this? (Parallel transport in spaces with dilations, II)
- MMORPGames at the knowledge frontier
- Parallel transport in spaces with dilations, I
- An account of personal motivations concerning research and publication
- Gamifying peer-review?
- FoM: denied publication
- Geometric Ruzsa inequality on groupoids and deformations
- Research banana republic
- A tracker page for series of posts
- Towards geometric Plünnecke graphs
- A roadmap to computing with space
- Scale is a place in the brain
- Curvature and halfbrackets, part III
- Traditional publishing works because academics support it
- Carry propagation-free number systems and a kind of approximate groups (I)
- Announcement
- Big sets of oriented Reidemeister moves which don’t generate all moves
- Writing research articles vs writing blog posts
- Packing arrows (II) and the strand networks sector
- New discussion on UD (updated)
- Peer-reviews: soundness vs interest
- “Future of peer review” by Maria Kowalczuk
- Curvature and halfbrackets, part II
- Cartesian method, scientific method and counting problems
- More on the cartesian method and it’s associated disease
- Curvature and halfbrackets, part I
- On the cartesian disease
- The Cartesian Method
- Packing and unpacking arrows in graphic lambda calculus
- Peer-review, what is it for?
- Axioms for projective conical spaces (towards qubits II)
- Geometric Ruzsa triangle inequalities and metric spaces with dilations
- Neuroscience and computation: hand-in-hand
- Applications of UD (part II)
- Currying by using zippers and an allusion to the Cartesian Theater
- Multiple peer-reviews, a story with a happy-end
- Anonymous peer-review after 15 months
- Emergent algebras as combinatory logic (part IV)
- Why computing with space?
- Applications of Unlimited Detail
- Topology of the double of the double of the double …
- The origin of emergent algebras (part III)
- OA moral and logo
Archives
- May 2013 (12)
- April 2013 (22)
- March 2013 (17)
- February 2013 (21)
- January 2013 (29)
- December 2012 (26)
- November 2012 (16)
- October 2012 (11)
- September 2012 (6)
- August 2012 (2)
- July 2012 (9)
- June 2012 (6)
- May 2012 (9)
- April 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (3)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (8)
- August 2011 (6)
- July 2011 (9)
- June 2011 (23)
- January 2011 (1)
Given that “comments” can implemented in various different form, the poll is more than a bit ambiguous (I voted “yes” anyway, but…).
You are right, I wanted to formulate the question in the most unbiased form, but it was obviously stupid from my part. I shall remove the offensive “it does not bite you” as well, because the problem, as I gather from some private messages as well
, is that people have not a clear opinion about the value of comments, right?