On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 01:32:19AM -0400, grarpamp wrote:

On 8/28/19, Florentin Rochet LAZILY TOP POSTED AND BLOCK QUOTED:

...

This list is mixing good papers with several dubious ones.

Failed to denote which, and why in detail such labels may or may not apply to them.

...

I find important to mention that it would be better looking here instead for non-expert readers: https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/ to find quality peer-reviewed works, and keep the ones that intersect both lists for now.

Such intersection (logical AND) will of course yield only those papers approved and posted there by TPO / principals... any entity doing such self curation is prone to variety of selection biases. And peer review is somewhat often an ivory tower circle jerk among an exclusive peer group... equally often any supposed reviewers are not denoted anywhere. Novel papers are surely free as any to come from anywhere with zero association, consultation, editorial priviledge, consideration, etc given.

If you really want to know what is good vs marginal vs rubbish, read and validate them yourselves, consult independants, study the knowledge areas, actually discuss them in detail in whatever communities you wish, including as desired in those that are their subject, try writing your own papers, etc.

This.