How can I make sure that the citations are real and actually useful? Citations-cartels are already a thing.

I’m thinking that citations in papers can be actual links (akin to hyperlinks) to the location in the cited paper itself. This way it can be automatically verified that there are no citation loops, that citations reference current revisions, that the papers cited have not been retracted or otherwise discredited, and following citation trails becomes much easier. Would that help the citation-carcel issue, you think?

How can the review process be ported to that approach without losing the independence of the reviews? They are supposed to be anonymous and not affiliated with the authors in any way?

How important is anonymity in reviews? My thought process is going the opposite way: by linking reviews and comments on papers to the person/institution making it, it encourages them to be more responsible with their words and may indicate potential biases with regards to institution affiliations.

How can the amount of articles be reduced? Currently, you’re forced to publish as much as possible, published articles in “good” journals are your currency as a reseacher.

Here I’m also thinking the exact opposite: the issue isn’t the numbers of papers, it’s how the papers are organized that’s the problem. We actually want MORE papers for the reasons hinted at here: important papers are going unpublished because they are (for lack of a better word) uninteresting. A null result is not an invalid result, and its important to get that data out there. By having journals gate-keep the data that gets released, we are doing the scientific community a disservice.

Of course, more papers increases the number of junk papers published, but that’s where having the papers available openly and having citations linked electronically comes in. The data can be fed in to large data mining algorithms for meta analysis, indexing and searching, and categorization. Plus, if it later turns out that a paper is junk, any papers that cite it (and any papers that cite those, and so on) can all be flagged for review or just automatically retracted.

Thoughts?

I know little of the ins-and-outs of scientific publishing, but that didn’t stop me from having a dumb thought: could the fediverse be a potential solution? Each university or research group could host their own instance of some software specifically for publishing papers, papers can cross-link citations to papers on other instances, people can make comments across instances that are tied to their own identities from their home instance, paper revisions can be tracked easily and bad citations spotted when a paper is updated or retracted, that kind of thing. The currency then becomes the reputation of the organizations and individuals, and this opens up a ton of data for automated analysis. I just don’t know enough to know what problems would arise.

The metrics are the only important part! How else are we supposed to know how good the line is unless we constantly stress test the line by collecting data? Your ability to use the line is not a useful metric, so we don’t worry about that.

We know when you lie. We can see uptime stats.

And it took a lot of hard work by a lot of people to adopt new date standards to avoid that problem. Now it’s time to adopt new IP standards, and it’s going to take a lot of hard work by a lot of people.

If I interpret your question correctly, you are basically asking what the practical difference is between interpreting a model as a reflection of reality and interpreting a model as merely a mathematical tool.

A mathematical model, at its core, is used to allow us to make testable predictions about our observations. Interpretations of that model into some kind of explanation about the fundamental nature of reality is more the realm of philosophy. That philosophy can loop back into producing more mathematical models, but the models themselves only describe behavior, not nature.

A model by nature is an analogy, and analogies are always reductionist. Like any analogy, if you poke it hard enough, it starts to fall apart. They make assumptions, they do their best to plug holes, they try to come as close as they can to mirroring the behavior of our observations, but they always fall short somewhere. Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics are both good examples. Both are very, very good at describing behavior within certain boundaries, but fall completely apart when you step outside of them. (Both, to expand on the example, use constants that are impericaly determined, but we have no idea where they come from.)

The danger is in when you start to assume that a model of reality is reality itself, and you forget that it’s just a best guess of behaviors. Then you get statements like you first made. “Relativity assumes time is a dimension. The model for that works. Therefore time must be a dimension in reality. That must mean that not treating time as a dimension anywhere must be wrong.” That line of thinking, though, forgets that a model is only correct within the scope of the model itself. As soon as you introduce a new model, any assumptions made by other models are no longer relevant. That will pigeonhole your thinking and lead you to incorrect conclusions due to mixed analogies.

That is how you get statements like your first one. “Model A treats time like an illusion, but model B treats time like a dimension. Ergo, all dimensions are illusions .” That is mixing analogies.

I would be careful of confusing “reality” (whatever that is) with our model of reality. Relativity, which treats time as a dimension, is a good model that fits well with most of our observations. It’s not perfect, though, and it doesn’t fit well with some other observations. That’s how we know that it doesn’t fully match reality, and why we’re looking for a new model.

Paraphrasing the old saying: all models of the universe are wrong, but some are useful.

Time management is different for everyone, and when you’re on a deadline, or just dealing with a one-off situation, the extra research has no value.

Sometimes you don’t need to know how the clock works, you just need to know what time it is.

I suppose the question is which would use less energy: boiling to distill, or boiling just enough to bind the microplastics to the calcium and then filter the now easy-to-remove large particles.

Yes. The hunters would gift their kills to the gatherers, and the gatherers would gift their findings to the hunters. The economic model is known as a “gift economy.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

There is no such thing as not having an “economic model.” As long as there are people with unmet needs and wants, there will be an economy, and that economy can be modeled and given a label.

Unless you’re someone who tends to B-negative anyway.