<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>An Algorithm to Determine Peer-Reviewers · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cs_0605112/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cs_0605112/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>An Algorithm to Determine Peer-Reviewers — mentioned by Anon84</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=250822</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:cs_0605112:250822</guid><pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:28:48 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You are right... up to a point. History has shown us that the progression of science isn&amp;#x27;t made by giants standing on the shoulders of giants as much as midgets standing on the toes of midgets. Newtons, Einsteins and the like don&amp;#x27;t come along too often. And 99.9% of anything too new (as you put it) is likely also wrong. And when something too new does manage to pass through the filter and (god forbid) become fashionable we&amp;#x27;re in serious trouble. Just take a look at String &amp;quot;Theory&amp;quot; decades of work by arguably some of the best brains in the world and absolutely nothing significant to show for…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cs_0605112/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.DL</category></item></channel></rss>
