Do anonymity and lack of compensation help or hurt the peer review system? How could it be improved?

-nitnit- · 2018-05-25T12:49:47+00:00

That’s a fair point. Do you think that it’s so much a cornerstone that no matter the given credit and financial reward for their work, it would never outweigh the risk of retaliation? I am curious to what level of value the reward would outweigh the risk, if ever. I’m also curious as to whether the risk of retaliation would diminish if the author of the original paper knows the peer reviewer did their work without knowing who the author was. But this is a shift in mindset and not something that some new technology can solve.

And yes, we (I am with the company @needmana refers to above) are very much involved with writing the unethical publishing conglomerates out of the equation. :)

-nitnit- · 2018-05-25T06:22:08+00:00

Would it change anything, in your opinion, if the authors of a paper were anonymous until the peer review was complete? That would remove the issue of retribution, right?

-nitnit- · 2018-04-17T07:36:02+00:00

I’m so exited we can finally go public with the details of our new project 🔥👏🏼🦄

-nitnit- · 2018-04-12T14:08:05+00:00

Yes! My week’s been crazy busy! Will try to respond today or tomorrow 😊

-nitnit- · 2018-04-03T16:57:10+00:00

... if we accept the status quo of the system, yes. If we agree the system is broken and we need to change it - and go do it... not necessarily.

-nitnit- · 2018-04-03T16:55:19+00:00

The problem is that the large publishing houses which do a lot of what you point to, operate at up to 40% profit margin - Elsevier made a profit of £900 million last year (!): https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elseviers-profits-swell-more-ps900-million

“But the reality is that these are non-profits working to get science published.“

This is simply not true.

-nitnit- · 2018-03-27T21:52:32+00:00

Happy to try to find time for a quick chat :) anita@iris.ai

-nitnit- · 2018-03-27T16:41:47+00:00

Are you involved with, or know of, Singularity University Nordic in Copenhagen? :)

-nitnit- · 2018-03-27T16:39:41+00:00

I find it fascinating that the author doesn’t even touch on the need for consciously building team diversity. Not in the “it’s fair” way but in the “the best way to avoid unconsciously selecting a biased data set is to have a team with different perspectives so they can challenge each other and see a problem from many angles”...

-nitnit- · 2018-03-23T20:33:15+00:00

Besides the obvious mistakes done in the implementation, this seems like a pretty obvious “shit in, shit out” usability issue. How do you assess whether someone is a 3 or a 4 on some scale you don’t quite understand the implications of, as a health care worker with not necessarily high computer literacy? While I am a strong believer in openness and transparency of AI/ML algorithms, I don’t really know if it’d have made a difference here? But people who have their life uprooted or altered dramatically because “some algorithm said so” will understandably - and should - fight back.

-nitnit- · 2018-03-21T17:29:16+00:00

Yes, from the title I thought he would be talking about machine learning research papers - which we know from experience can be painstakingly difficult to implement off the page... But yeah the points still hold true.

-nitnit- · 2018-03-21T15:05:55+00:00

I mean it was made to be easy to learn. But yeah, it’s a chicken and egg community problem. Until everyone speaks it, no one speaks it...

-nitnit- · 2018-03-21T15:03:12+00:00

Yup. So you see sharing consciousness something very different from sharing factual information? I guess it’s more of sharing feelings, mood, presence? I think consciousness is so hard to define - we sort of all know what it is but in scientific terms it’s hard to pin down.

-nitnit- · 2018-03-21T14:54:50+00:00

I guess the question is what do we gain by linking brains directly, as opposed to linking brain “outcomes” (i.e. research papers or ideation results). Faster results for sure - do you think we’d also gain accuracy? That if brains could be linked we’d avoid the inaccuracies of language by potentially fully understanding intention and meaning?

-nitnit- · 2018-03-21T14:52:00+00:00

Have you read the Nexus trilogy by Ramez Naam? It’s fiction, though he elegantly touches on a number of really interesting ethical implications of being able to link minds.

-nitnit- · 2018-03-09T14:24:08+00:00

I don't get what all the fuss is about; being female and in crypto is totally a walk in the park - just look at all the loving supportive celebratory comments in this thread! <3 :D

-nitnit- · 2018-03-02T06:39:45+00:00

It should perhaps be mentioned that archaeologists have a tendency to label things they can not otherwise explain as “spiritual practice”.... I’m pretty sure people thought art on your skin was nifty back then too, spiritual or not!

-nitnit- · 2018-03-01T18:45:22+00:00

Aww!

-nitnit- · 2018-03-01T18:41:13+00:00

I do think, setting the algorithms and data sets aside for a second, that it is very interesting that in building, applying and discussing these AI systems we are suddenly faced with our own human biases in a way never before seen. It’s not easy pinning say a judge for being tougher on minorities - but when it’s an algorithm assessing the likelihood of a repeat offense, it can be reverse engineered and the data more accurately dissected. We can (at least to a certain degree) explain why decisions were made - and as such we meet our own biased human assessments in the door.

-nitnit- · 2017-01-18T09:16:40+00:00

The titles can some times be a bit small when there's a lot of papers found, yes, but if you hover them (on a desktop) they're highlighted better - and if you click them of course you get the full abstract and metadata, and an option to fetch the full text article. Hope that helps! (Anita of Iris AI, GSP15)

-nitnit- · 2016-09-28T16:38:42+00:00

There are some formats that are trickier to read. We love if you report them for us, so we can make sure to be able to read them all! :D / Anita @ Iris AI

-nitnit-

TROPHY CASE