On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:32:19AM -0400, grarpamp wrote: > On 8/28/19, Florentin Rochet <[email protected]> LAZILY > TOP POSTED AND BLOCK QUOTED: > > This list is mixing good papers with several dubious ones. > > Failed to denote which, and why in detail such > labels may or may not apply to them. > > > I find important to mention that it would be better looking here instead > > for non-expert readers: https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/ to find > > quality peer-reviewed works, and keep the ones that intersect both lists > > for now. > > Such intersection (logical AND) will of course yield only those > papers approved and posted there by TPO / principals... any entity > doing such self curation is prone to variety of selection biases. > And peer review is somewhat often an ivory tower circle jerk > among an exclusive peer group... equally often any supposed > reviewers are not denoted anywhere. Novel papers are surely > free as any to come from anywhere with zero association, > consultation, editorial priviledge, consideration, etc given.
> If you really want to know what is good vs marginal vs rubbish, > read and validate them yourselves, consult independants, > study the knowledge areas, actually discuss them in detail > in whatever communities you wish, including as desired in > those that are their subject, try writing your own papers, etc. This.
