HN user

pickle27

270 karma
Posts4
Comments14
View on HN

great post.

I've also spent a lot of time thinking about this problem and would like to eventually put some work towards it. A couple of additional ideas that I've had:

* A paper could rely on a critical reference to build upon and the referenced paper could be disproven down the line but this is not immediately obvious from the paper that used it.

* Currently it doesn't seem like any merit is given to researchers who are very good at reviewing papers. Compare this to software where a good code review is celebrated. Editing and cleaning up the state of science should be valued when scientists are looking for work so I think that something along the line of a Github CV for scientists would be valuable.

I had an idea similar to this where when filing for a patent you include an estimate of R&D costs. If the patent is awarded then its lifetime is related to how long it takes to get a reasonable payout on the R&D investment.

This way big pharmaceuticals put a couple million into a new drug and they get to profit for a few years. An Apple engineer makes slide to unlock in a couple days and given the number of iphones sold the patent is over quite quickly.

tl;dr a salary cap for patents based on R&D cost