-3
$\begingroup$

It has become clear to me that the CPR idea redacted below is waaay too complex to succeed. The less ambitious "Journal Club" idea of 2 years ago was enthusiastically received, then fizzled. I feel that was too ambitious also.

More realistically, I would propose that there can be questions based on particular papers, preprints or articles that can only be sensibly answered if that paper has been read. Perhaps with a research-paper tag? The question can be as basic as "what do you think of this paper?".

This could achieve some of the goals of a "Journal Club", such as providing higher level content, without the off-putting procedural overhead.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've deleted a large number of comments inspired by an earlier version of this post and relating to Physics Overflow. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Sep 27 '15 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ So basically you want to resurrect the journal club that kinda went nowhere? $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 27 '15 at 20:38
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I've (again) removed completely irrelevant tags. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 27 '15 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, we were editing at the same time, broken lines, and I stepped on your edit. Probably the same edits anyway, except for tags. $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 27 '15 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ No, my edit was accepted. The irrelevant tags are still gone. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 27 '15 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ --- So basically you want to resurrect the journal club that kinda went nowhere? --- No. Reading the journal club discussion now. $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 27 '15 at 20:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually yes. I initially misunderstood the Journal proposition to suggest assignments and scheduled meetings, which would NOT be good. How about a special kind of paper review question where in order to answer you need to read a certain paper. OR, a question that is actually a paper review by the PO. $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 27 '15 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ Please, no scheduled chats. $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 27 '15 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KyleKanos, since I have COMPLETELY reformulated the Question, can we start over on the voting? $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 28 '15 at 6:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Aabaakawad No, that's not how this site works. You could try to ask a new question (again). $\endgroup$ – Danu Sep 28 '15 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Aabaakawad: I've removed my downvote (always possible after an edit), but I concur with Danu's answer that your proposal really is already on-topic. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Sep 28 '15 at 10:56
7
$\begingroup$

The proposal as it currently stands (v12) is pretty much vacuous: The type of questions that you propose is already on-topic on this site. They typically do not attract much attention or a great answer, because the chances that someone here has read [insert random arXiv paper] is pretty small, and most people wouldn't read an entire paper just to answer a question on this site. However, they're definitely allowed and thus you're not proposing anything new. Here is a typical example.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, just trying figure out how we ever could get reviewing papers going. The Journal Club idea looks really well thought out, yet it did not go anywhere, so I guess I have to accept that reviewing papers is just not going to happen. $\endgroup$ – Aabaakawad Sep 29 '15 at 1:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, "what do you think of this paper" is not a good question for us (I don't know if that was in the question when you answered). But in general, the idea that questions about a specific research paper are on topic is totally true. $\endgroup$ – David Z Sep 29 '15 at 6:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidZ indeed, that would not be a good question, and that wasn't what I answered to :-) $\endgroup$ – Danu Sep 29 '15 at 7:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .