Ben Allen

@mike@sauropods.win @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org I'm definitely on board with post-preprint review. It should be the norm. I'm cautiously optimistic about elife's "reviewed preprints" model, and I like the @PeerCommunityIn@ecoevo.social model too. But organizing the post-preprint review process is surely worth something, no? I would love to see a model where reviewers and editors are fairly compensated for this.

@mike@sauropods.win @villavelius@mastodon.online @mattjhodgkinson @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org This is interesting. But science can't just all be "preprint and done", can it? As flawed as it is, peer review on some level is needed, no? (I would prefer to have peer-reviewers and editors be fairly compensated for their labor, rather than all $ going to publishing companies that do nothing but format your pdf)

@robjohnnoble@ecoevo.social Hi Rob, just saw this! If I understand correctly, your proposal is essentially to turn non-ultrametric trees into ultrametric ones by extending "short" branches and assigning zero density to the extensions. Then standard diversity indices can be applied. If my understanding is correct, it sounds like a very reasonable idea!

@robjohnnoble@ecoevo.social ah, that makes sense. I haven't read all the way to the end yet, but I like the way you are putting things together!