🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@stux Agreed, they are... but in this case they got it right.. biden was an idiot and clearly doesnt know the first thing about US history no cares to check before he speaks.. Cannons where unregulated and legal until 1934.

Man this guy is an idiot. You literally could buy a cannon... I guess knowing history isnt important for presidents these days huh?

#uspol #biden

@lucifargundam Very nice, whats the year?

Columbus didn't think the earth was round, he thought it was pear shaped like a titty with a nipple and all...

> I found it (the world) was not round . . . but pear shaped, round where it has a nipple, for there it is taller, or as if one had a round ball and, on one side, it should be like a woman’s breast, and this nipple part is the highest and closest to Heaven.
>
> –Christopher Columbus, Log of his third voyage (1498)

Bear in mind by this point the dude had been at sea for sometime, so I'd imagine he was seeing tity shaped things everywhere he looked.

#history #Columbus

@icymastodon@mstdn.social

Metrics for measurement, imperial for governments :)

@calculsoberic@mstdn.social @stux @strawberryfieldsforever@mstdn.social @strawberryfieldsforever

Body shots are fucking disgusting, there I said it. I'f im going to risk getting a yeast infection around my mouth I better at least be getting laid for the effort...

Yea no thanks, pour it in a shot glass for me.

@ademan

Yup, at its core its literally just a web of trust. The key would be in how that web is structures and populating it the actual trust "ratings"

@khird

@khird That would create a centralized system, though, where whoever controls the root certificates controls effectively who has the power to curate the articles.

The only real difference between your proposal and mine is that in mine the "root certificates" are dictated by the reader, they opt-in or out of root certificates and this ultimately determines the credibility rating of articles.

There can even be meta-root authorities that effectively suggest the list of root authorities people should (but are not required) to adopt.

> I might review papers totally outside my competence, because although my experience in fluid dynamics is totally irrelevant to, say, political science, the rules award my review of one equal credit to the other

In my system, and what i tried to explain, it is only when you get a paper past peer review you get points. You wouldnt get points simply for submitting a review.

> I might find another author and set up a tit-for-tat scheme to give each other five free points every iteration, no matter the quality of our papers

In a system that adds or takes away points as one gains credentials this wouldn't necessarily work. As other more credible authors review the same work and reject it you will find the tit-for-tat scheme is more likely to lower your credibility than to raise it.

> What worries me is that if the system initially develops a reputation for being easy to game and accepting of low-quality content, it will be very hard to shed that reputation later on, even if improvements are made. So it needs to be done right the first time.

On this I generally agree. But since ultimately the trust comes from the user and there is no absolute "score" or acceptance outside of the user defining who they trust or who they dont then this should be easy enough to do.

For example the user might choose to just use the QOTO's recommended trust (which we hand pick ourselves) and leave the setting at that, in which case the system would be operating with no more risks than a traditional journal. The difference is the user could pick a different trust priovider all toegher, or combine trust providers in a weighted way, or even define their own subset of trust based off trust providers (such as only accepting authors who have posted in a particular set of journals or who have been cited atleast 100 times)

@khird The reader wouldnt be verifying the reviewers individually, I agree that would be unworkable.

The solution would have to lie in a network of trust. So, for example, a user might specify they trust people with PhD's from acredited institutions with 20 points of default trust, and then one additional point for every successful publication they have in a third party journal, and an additional 5 points for each article they have published on QOTO that has passed my personal criteria for acceptance.

You set up the categories of "trust" and then those criteria are used to determine what passes for the individual.

Peer-review being anonymous can be a possiblity and optional. The identiy need not be public as long as the system itself knows the person and can evaluate their credentials.

This is what I meant when I said the approval process needs to be "fuzzy".. it has to use some trust network where a person can generalize groups or categories of "properties" as being things that increase or decrease one's trust in the person.

@oloke While I dont doubt that is true I would love to see a list of whatever examples come to mind.

I have been thinking about writing a webapp that would enable QOTO to become the first "open, distributed, scientific journal".. I am still thinking about how I am going to go about it but the idea would be a scientific journal that anyone, regardless of credentials or pre-approval, can submit articles and peer-review and ultimately the acceptance or rejection of an article will happen without a centralized authority.

In all liklihood acceptance will be "fuzzy" in that it will be up to the reader to decide if the groups which approved of the article through peer review have sufficient credentials that you trust them. So the key will be in designing a way to make that work.

Ideas are welcome of course.

#Science #STEM #PeerReview

Remember, if you see someone drowning, first laugh out loud, then bacon, then and only then call 911!

@funny #funny #joke #jokes #humour #humor #meme

Just some info for aspiring scientists.. If you have papers you've written of a scientific nature but are either not suited for a scientific journal or you simply dont want to go through the rigour, you can still get a DOI for your publication and associate it with your ORCID. which is good if your trying to build up your reputation and improve the catalog associated with your ORCID.

Check out https://zenodo.org/, anyone can get an account in a few minutes and then your all set to upload your documents which will immediately be assigned a DOI. Though of course the submissions are reviewed and if they arent of a scientific nature may be taken down.

I just tried it out by uploaded an old paper I wrote that was basically a one page how-to on doing rotations in an arbitrary number of dimensions. You can check it out here at my shiny new DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5027318