Post #1655930
2026-04-20 08:05 UTC
@moritz_negwer yes, great point
From a science funding and costly signalling perspective, one question is how funders could impose application costs which are disproportionately costly for 'dishonest' signallers (and what that would even mean?)
Replies (1)
-
@moritz_negwer@mstdn.science 2026-04-20 19:35
@tomstafford One way I could see that might actually be a positive move: acknowledge that quality signals in text were always fuzzy at best, and are now degraded to the point that a detailed sorting by quality (whatever that means) is not possible anymore. As a consequence, stop trying to throw a limited resource (reviewer time) after a newly limitless one (submission texts) to try discerning ever more fine-grained gradations of excellence. (1/2)