TL;DR
This paper proposes evaluating scientific truth through the entire discussion chain in journals, emphasizing its importance over individual papers and advocating for funding to support extended discussions.
Contribution
It introduces a novel focus on the discussion chain as a measure of scientific reliability, shifting attention from individual papers to collective discourse.
Findings
Discussion chain enhances scientific reliability
Funding should prioritize discussion extension
Maintaining discussion chains improves scientific quality
Abstract
To make scientific truth more reliable and qualified, I propose to focus on the chain of discussion in a scientific journal rather than on each original paper. The value, quality and reliability should be judged by the form of the whole discussion chain, not only by an original report. Funding and sponsorship should also give more priority to the extension of the discussion chain. Maintaining the discussion chain and evaluating each scientific truth by the whole chain is the next value of the scientific community in the post-generative AI era.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAcademic Publishing and Open Access · Expert finding and Q&A systems · Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies