-
I think they are totally different…
-
On the other hand, there are those who believe that writing papers is research
-
What is this mismatch?
-
- I was digging around and thinking about it and I’m not sure, so this is a simple question, but what do you need to write a thesis for?
- The Internet is no longer more efficient than periodicals in terms of publishing results.
- Some see value in peer review, but why should we trust the opinions of a few anonymous volunteers, even if they are researchers in a close field?
-
uchan_nos
-
Writing a paper and publishing it in a periodical would be two different things. I think the paper itself needs to be written for publication of the results. It is certainly not necessary to put it in a periodical. It is enough to archive it on some site.
-
-
dmikurube
-
I think it is better to first separate the following three points: 1. the structure and form of a paper, 2. journal/international conference proceedings as a forum for publication, and 3. quality assurance through peer review.
-
I’ll try to separate them again.
- 1: Publication of research results
- 2: The publication of research results must be in the format of a paper.
- 3: That the publication will be “uniquely identifiable and mentionable” like the arXiv
- Publication of paper books and acceptance in journals also fulfill this requirement sufficiently, as they can be made unique by using the title of the book or journal, etc.
- 4: The publication has been peer reviewed.
- 5: The publication must be accepted for publication in a reputable journal.
So, let me get my opinion straight.
-
I think you should do up to number 3, but I’m not sure why you need 4 and 5.
-
After working up to number 3, I also see value in presenting at international conferences as a way to draw attention to it.
- I don’t think it’s a MUST because it’s just a means to an end.
-
Regarding #4, how much value do you place on the information that it was peer-reviewed by anonymous volunteers who do not know who they are?
-
As for 5, I can see how some people are in situations where that would change the way they are evaluated by the payroll.
- I wonder what kind of value it could have in the absence of such a situation.
-
How much value can you place on the information that an anonymous volunteer, whose identity you do not know, has peer-reviewed the report?
-
aokomoriuta Essentially, a reviewer is not an anonymous person, but a big professor who is already an authority, and it is meant to have his/her endorsement (that’s why there are cover letters). (That’s why there is such a thing as a cover letter.)
- This makes sense.
- I find positive value in things mentioned by experts in the field that I trust (e.g., for Deep Learning, Okanohara-san).
- On the other hand, there are problems such as load concentration if a specific person is allowed to do the review, so load distribution has been done.
-
aokomoriutaIf the “direct review by an authoritative professor” is changed to “a trusted reviewer appointed by an authoritative professor” and then to “a journal whose editorial board is composed of authoritative professors” and “a journal of an academic society to which an authoritative professor belongs”, it will be the same as the current situation. If the journals are changed from “directly reviewed by an authoritative professor” to “trusted reviewers appointed by an authoritative professor” and then to “journals of academic societies to which authoritative professors belong,” it will be the same as the current situation.
-
- Opinion that there is value in a community where feedback is available taroleo.
-
Because the effort to peer review papers and provide feedback for better research is basically unavailable to the public, we need to maintain a community that discusses papers throughout the process.
-
Even though we are anonymous volunteers, the PC members are basically publicized, which is much better than having negative comments thrown at you by people you don’t understand.
-
In that sense, we can avoid journals that are full of terrible reviews with no insight.
-
In the deep learning field, there is a movement to actively understand and use papers even if they are on the arXiv before peer review, so it seems that things are changing. A community is spontaneously arising.
-
-
-
Currency Metaphor
-
dmikurubeThe decision to accept or reject by peer review was originally necessary to save resources due to the physical media, and is no longer necessary, and especially the practice of placing value on the high-profile journals and conference proceedings that would have resulted from it should be abolished. (I am aware that academics have recently been considering the impact factor bias to be a problem.)
-
I think that the reason why people find value in it is the same as the currency as a joint illusion, like everyone (peers) thinks that the conference/journal there is valuable, so it is valuable. If you are not a peer, it is meaningless in the first place, and I feel that those who think that only those who are “in the same industry” as you are researchers can be ignored.
- This metaphor of “currency” is very personal to me.
- You go on a sightseeing trip to a southern island and say, “What, I can’t use USD on this island? I could use it in Hawaii or Guam?” It is no use saying, “I could use it in Hawaii or Guam.” If you want to write about what is sold locally, you need to get the currency used locally.
- On the other hand, “need to get local currency” does not mean “need to earn it locally”. If you already have USD, you’d exchange it rather than work and earn it the same way the locals do. Especially if you don’t plan to spend long term there.
-
relevance - No numerical criteria should be used to evaluate researchers. - Academia and business have different valuation functions. - The Trap of Differentiation
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/研究と論文執筆の違いは何か using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.