Oddbean

Goes to show how desperately decentralized systems are needed. Nostr is a dinky little Twitter make-believe yet people immediately project their desires for decentralized whatever onto it. Nostr for git! Nostr for science! Nostr for Wikipedia!! Distributed systems are hard. Why don't you make one instead of asking for one.

Seems like he was just asking if this exists. Just getting an idea out there can be a great way to start working out the details of building all these decentralized systems that we need. Maybe someone sees this and runs with it. I personally would love to see this, but I do not program and do not desire to learn. I would however, contribute testing, feedback, and ideas. I also can get frustrated with 'someone should do this', but do not see that here.

Any scientist declaring their research into a taboo topic, like autism and vaccines, knows they have cut their careers off at the knee it won't matter where they print it and if they go anonymous, there will be derision on the lack of transparency I like the idea but ATM its likely to be wasted effort two broad ideas 1) perhaps a crowd funded BTC reward tied to something concrete or useful. That would have to run into the millions of dollars to make the cut methinks 2) a Decentralised peer reviewing situation in which anyone can make comments, request data sharing on a study. people can be anonymous or not. perhaps scientists can zap one another for making useful constructive comments maybe a scientist that puts up their research can request commenters place a sats bond for good behaviour, and reward for useful help it's this final one I think srNds a chance of getting used (and it's needed because scientists can be fucking nasty children and jealous time wasters)

one could just publish as long form posts using clients as https://yakihonne.com or https://habla.news These offer formatting and embedding graphics. To make sure content stays on Nostr running an own relay for these articles would be an option as well as broadcasting it to others from time to time. Media storage had to be handled also.

Imho, the main problem isn't censorship, but rather how absolutely broken and utterly scammy the whole peer-review system currently is. First, it's important to note most of the research worldwide it's funded with public money. When publishing, researchers face a choice. Either go for a closed-access journal, which requires giving the copyrights of the paper to the publisher, or pay several grand in publishing costs to publish in an open-access journal. If they chose the former, then the institutions that have funded the research have to pay a subscription to the journal to have access to the research they have funded. If they chose the later, then researchers have to waste research funds in paying an overpriced "publication fee". To make things worse, most open-access journals are owned by the same companies that own the closed-source ones, so essentially you either pay them up front, or on a delayed basis. This is public money payed, to a select few companies, to have/guarantee public access to research funded with public money. If this wasn't scammy enough, researchers have to review their peers' papers to validate the quality and veridity of their research. "To ensure professional and unbiased reviews" the review process has no economic compensation. Instead, researchers are incentivized to review peers' papers by the publishers' predisposition to preferentially publish "collaborating authors". Essentially, researchers are forced by publishers into unpaid work to guarantee a "fair chance" at seeing their work published. Since this is considered a normal part of the researchers' work, it is often carried out during normal working hours. This means that the publishers are outsourcing the labor, and associated costs, which is once again being paid for with public money destined to research. In summary, public money is being used to carry out the research, to publish and/or access the research, and to review the research. All while the publishers drain a good chunk of the funds in one of the most profitable, well established and long-lasting scams ever created. Fixing this shitshow requires more than an uncensorable platform to host papers and datasets. It requires a complete refurbishment of the peer-review system. nostr:nevent1qqsdurz3uxgy4lpvue7dxyr8whc2gt80hzldsssy6y7q0ev606l4ehspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyprj73q098hejm5j5xrt35eqluvqep2eqwyzukw4phsm302kdycpuqcyqqqqqqgjnq00y