Re: [tlug] Journals, Authors and 'Free Peer Review'

[Benjamin Kowarsch <trijezdci@example.com>]

Hi

On 25 September 2018 at 20:47, Darren Cook <darren@example.com> wrote:

> my workplace gives credit to publication in journals and not
> ArXiv...so that's what I'll do.  ;-(

That was my thought: when it comes to grant renewal, published in Nature
is going to sound so much better than "published on my blog", even if
ten leading figures in your field left a thumbs up in the comments.

I do not understand how you are getting from ArXiv.org to "my blog".

I'd say that having a paper on ArXiv.org is qualitatively better than a

downloadable document on a home page, which in turn is qualitatively

better than a blog entry.

Generally speaking, anything that requires more thoroughness ranks

qualitatively above anything that requires less.

Writing a scholarly paper in the proper format, with abstract, glossary,

citations and references, introduction, elaboration, thesis, conclusion

etc etc, LaTeXed, is going to be more thorough than some paper

written up over a weekend without the scientific rigor applied and

probably using a word processor.

Likewise, writing that paper over the weekend, even without the scientifc

rigor applied, even when written in a word processor is likely going to be

more more thorough or at least perceived to be more thorough than a blog

entry on a blog.

regards

benjamin