The best way to think of it is probably that Cassyni is to webinars as an academic journal is to blogs.
As an example, we issue a DOI for each seminar, meaning their metadata are indexed in the same systems that are used by journals to manage and report on citations. This turns the recording into something that is much closer to the formal sphere of human knowledge and can be included in typical academic reporting and evaluation structures.
If you're interested in the details of what goes in to developing rotors for a helicopter for an atmosphere we've never built in before you should check out this talk:
https://doi.org/10.52843/47ly7q
Thanks! In scaling up the fragility of the material seems very likely to be a big factor, cube-square law and so on. I wonder if there’ll be physical testing of proposed designs, are there even near-vacuum wind tunnels?
I hope this comes across as helpful and not one-upmanship: it is natural to think that having a child is like many of the other things you're used to in life where you can control the outcome.
That can lead to you worrying about and optimising for lots of things that won't matter too much in the grand scheme of things.
I can tell you from first hand experience that you are not in control. You will know you are in a truly stressful situation when you've forgetten about all of the items you've listed above because you're standing there watching, not sure what is going on, just hoping that everything is going to be ok.
I hope you never get to that point and in the meantime try enjoy the ride. I wish you and your family all the best!
I don't have a problem with the comments. They're illuminating under a close reading.
The role of CEO is high status and highly desirable. I think it's safe to assume most readers of this site have coveted it from time to time and had to accept at some point that they're in that role.
It's easier to accept this is you assume CEOs are exceptional and different to you in some way: as founders; impressive track record; or something similar.
However, this article gives an example of someone just like us stepping easily into that role. How can that be? Why can't we have this? Either there is a problem with this CEO or we're missing out. It's easier to believe the former That's what the comments are about.
There may be an intersection between fabricated research and fraudulently reviewed research but I understand that at least some of the papers retracted for reviewer fraud could have been published legitimately.
Grandparent has it right. This is all about the pressure on authors to publish, and publish quickly.
You might be interested in the Publons Academy [1] -- which we are launching tomorrow -- and some of the other tools we've built to improve the review process (e.g., more trustworthy contact methods) and formally recognise reviewers.
I'm a founder. Very interested in your feedback on what we need to be doing.
If I may make a small suggestion: do this under your real name, it will help your credibility tremendously, 'pizza_boy' is not going to help you to get people to believe you are serious.
With Publons.com (https://publons.com) we have different philosophy: the more transparency we can bring to the review process, the better. At the same time we recognise that both blind and double-blind peer review play an important role in generating quality research.
Our approach is to focus on turning review of all kinds (including both pre- and post-publication) into a measurable research output -- something you can add to your resume. We support both anonymous and signed review with the idea that it will lead to greater transparency in the long run and also motivate reviewers to contribute more.
We have a significant number of both types of review now and are starting to look ways to measure if there are significant differences between blind and open review.
Hi, I like the site and idea. I was wondering if you were thinking of taking it one step further, however, and making it an actual pre-print server?
I would think that if you expect people to take the "credit for reviewing" model seriously, then likewise they should take seriously the notion of "credit for being reviewed" or "credit for being upvoted".
Also, there would have to be a way to verify submitters/reviewers credentials (e.g. connection to a research institution). Obvious arXiv has a model for how this could be done.
This is one of the problems we're trying to solve with Publons.com. We help reviewers to build an officially verified record of past reviews (which is great when it comes to getting tenure). Editors can then use those records to vett candidate reviewers.
Our original vision was similar to what you describe. You can read more here: https://publons.com/wos-op/publon/1/ https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.871466
There are several reasons why that original vision didn't work and why what we ended up building did work. Happy to chat about if you're interested...