A Brief Description of the Project
-
It is driven by greed, not love of discovery or helping out
-
A particular way of thinking or particular direction of research which is worth of publication Is forced Restricting the flow of ideas in a particular direction , which is against the scientific principle
-
Review in done only once and it is not verified over and over , repeatability is way something get credibility No scope of improvement of already published papers
-
No space for small contribution but we all know that those small discussion among peer is what Make a new idea click, leads to progress,
-
All form of contribution are not acknowledged, like someone improving the readability Or improving dataset or code and so on or making minor or major corrections No control over policy making , and redaction, price setting and other aspect of policy making Like use of AI tools
-
Rewards of free labor is taken by publishing house but it should be shared Either for reviewer or author or improver or scientific community
-
No place publishing for people who are not in academics,
-
Reputation is controlled by journal, it is a form of elitism, less known author find difficult to get entry there
-
Few people deciding whether something gets published or not , is deeply undemocratic. Instead what we should is, everyone should publish the work, and platform should rank them(by some publically available algo) and let people decide what importantance to give to that work.
1 .Build a democratically controlled , owned and managed platform For the scientist by the scientist
-
A open and continuous peer review process that acknowledge all form of contributions
-
A minimal fee imposed on publishing and whatever is the money earned, that to be decided by community of review which are democratically selected by all platform users
-
A clear and publicly available algo to decide credibilty/ value of paper, on this part I have worked out some algo, they do converge, and solution is not very obvious as bad actor will try their best to misuse it, it got to be robust from any form of manipulation, more work needed.
-
More on algo, researcher time is valuable, and it is essentially based on trust/ reputation before someone spends time on any paper,Aim is to provide the researcher a good tool for find valuable paper,now the value of paper depends personal integity (honesty), authors competence, value of coming from various input used in paper, like
dataset,methodology citations, peer reviews and values in reviews comes from indidividuals themselves having previously mentioned qualities. it forms a feedback loop. and only papers that come out of this loop which indeed are valuable. -
More on continuous review, By continuous review I mean process similier to software review process of github, various people make small changes to improve the code, thier contribution is acknowledged , value of code increase over time, This open review happens naturally as people read the articles, they often find points to improve but there is no plateform for scientific publish like github,
There is nothing free in the world, we need money which can collected by all members , grants But not by private investor, because profit is not our aim, Point is plateform must not be free for all, but pricing should be as less as possible. All the financial details should be publically avalible
Here is the discord link
rajeshpremlatamishra@gmail.com
When the prblem is collective,solution has to be collective, that is why don't hasitate to communicate, be in your personal life or professional life. Good Luck to Reader!!!!!