So many people do read and review papers, but then those reviews are just kept in a private file somewhere (or just in their brains) and hardly anyone sees them. So much great insight into published science is lost to the public this way. Lately I've been trying to blog about papers I read and then share my blog posts with http://www.researchblogging.org/, but even that isn't a very common thing to do.
If your site could become a hub for this type of discussion, it would be wonderful. Do you support (or plan on supporting) a researchblogging-like trackback system, in addition to comments? That might help you gain publicity too, if popular science bloggers link to your website when they discuss a paper.
1. we want to change the current peer review system, instead of letting 2 or 3 reviewers deciding your paper's fate, why not take advantage of ALL peers in your field? We're not quite there yet as it is a big goal, and we believe this is the right direction to head to.
2. academic journal publications are growing exponentially, how to select good papers from noise? PubUp provides peer curated selection of papers that are worth reading.
1) Specific topics -- HN is a general " what matters to startup kids " ( yes hard science is thicker )
2) You're wanting a better way to publish papers? Are you trying to get additional funding for this research?
3) HN has become a default bc its a sorting method for VC to dole out cash. Is the NSF reading?
I think you're in the right mindset but tell me what you're trying to do here.
This is our fun side project, and we just launched 3 days ago, so badly need feedback from the community. Thanks for your comment!
Nice project anyway, best of luck to you!
