Quantcast
ZME Science
  • News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Future
  • Space
  • Features
    Menu
    Natural Sciences
    Health
    History & Humanities
    Space & Astronomy
    Technology
    Culture
    Resources
    Natural Sciences

    Physics

    • Matter and Energy
    • Quantum Mechanics
    • Thermodynamics

    Chemistry

    • Periodic Table
    • Applied Chemistry
    • Materials
    • Physical Chemistry

    Biology

    • Anatomy
    • Biochemistry
    • Ecology
    • Genetics
    • Microbiology
    • Plants and Fungi

    Geology and Paleontology

    • Planet Earth
    • Earth Dynamics
    • Rocks and Minerals
    • Volcanoes
    • Dinosaurs
    • Fossils

    Animals

    • Mammals
    • Birds
    • Fish
    • Reptiles
    • Amphibians
    • Invertebrates
    • Pets
    • Conservation
    • Animals Facts

    Climate and Weather

    • Climate Change
    • Weather and Atmosphere

    Geography

    Mathematics

    Health
    • Drugs
    • Diseases and Conditions
    • Human Body
    • Mind and Brain
    • Food and Nutrition
    • Wellness
    History & Humanities
    • Anthropology
    • Archaeology
    • Economics
    • History
    • People
    • Sociology
    Space & Astronomy
    • The Solar System
    • The Sun
    • The Moon
    • Planets
    • Asteroids, Meteors and Comets
    • Astronomy
    • Astrophysics
    • Cosmology
    • Exoplanets and Alien Life
    • Spaceflight and Exploration
    Technology
    • Computer Science & IT
    • Engineering
    • Inventions
    • Sustainability
    • Renewable Energy
    • Green Living
    Culture
    • Culture and Society
    • Bizarre Stories
    • Lifestyle
    • Art and Music
    • Gaming
    • Books
    • Movies and Shows
    Resources
    • How To
    • Science Careers
    • Metascience
    • Fringe Science
    • Science Experiments
    • School and Study
    • Natural Sciences
    • Health
    • History and Humanities
    • Space & Astronomy
    • Culture
    • Technology
    • Resources
  • Reviews
  • More
    • Agriculture
    • Anthropology
    • Biology
    • Chemistry
    • Electronics
    • Geology
    • History
    • Mathematics
    • Nanotechnology
    • Economics
    • Paleontology
    • Physics
    • Psychology
    • Robotics
  • About Us
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

No Result
View All Result
ZME Science

Home → Science

Papr works like Tinder but with pre-prints instead of people

"That's one hot abstract!"

Alexandru Micu by Alexandru Micu
June 16, 2017
in Science, Tech

Described as the Tinder of pre-prints, Papr will let you swipe on scientific works for being “exciting,” “boring,” “probable,” or “questionable.”

Books and papers.
Image credits Johannes Jansson / Wikimedia.

You’ve already got the tap and flick motion of Tinder mastered but let’s face it — that app isn’t really for you. What you’re after is depth, meaning, a mental connection. Well, now there’s a way to use your hard-earned skill to get just that. Preprint server bioRxiv announced an app called Papr which lets you make snap judgements on pre-prints — papers published before they’ve gone through the peer-review process.

Actually, a case may be made that Papr is twice as complicated as Tinder, since you can swipe right, left, up, and down. Each direction corresponds to one of four categories: “exciting and probable,” “exciting and questionable,” “boring and probable,” “boring and questionable,” which is actually exactly how I think about my Tinder matches.

But if you’ve ever had the feeling that Tinder is just too superficial for your taste weeeell… Papr doesn’t do anything to address that. Currently, you can only see the papers’ abstracts, not the full work, you can’t see who wrote it, and you can’t rate them in any way, shape, or form beyond those four categories.

Simple by design

Papr’s co-creator Jeff Leek, a biostatistician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, says that this simplicity is actually an advantage. Papr’s goal isn’t to become an alternative to peer-review, but rather to help researchers cope with an “overwhelming” number of new papers and to spot areas of interdisciplinary overlap, Leek says. Scientists already use social media to find new papers, he adds, so why not simplify that process and get a general sense of their evaluation while at it?

And the four-category system works to keep it simple. Other similar-ish services, such as PubPeer, offer users a lot more space to comment and discuss on papers — but that also offers opportunities for foul play and dishonest competition. To prevent users from giving an objectively good paper written by a rival a bad rating, or rating a paper more generously because it was penned by a famous scientist, Papr simply doesn’t show you who wrote what — it doesn’t show author names and doesn’t allow you to search for a particular preprint or author.

Leek had first released an earlier version of Papr late last year but only started publicizing the app on social media earlier this month after his colleagues added a few more features, including a recommendation engine that suggests studies based on your preferences, an option to download your ratings along with links to the full preprints on bioRxiv, and suggestions for Twitter users with similar tastes as yours.

“We don’t believe that the data we are collecting is any kind of realistic peer review, but it does tell us something about the types of papers people find interesting and what leads them to be suspicious,” Leek says. “Ultimately we hope to correlate this data with information about where the papers are published, retractions, and other more in-depth measurements of paper quality and interest.”

In the end, Papr is important as it shows that the scientific community is working on finding more ways to evaluate all the papers being published every day. But whether or not the app will last is yet to be determined. Their website sums up Leek’s opinion on this issue in a very fun tidbit.

“This app is provided solely for entertainment of the scientific community and may be taken down at any time with no notice because Jeff gets tired of it. It is provided ‘as is’ and is not guaranteed to do anything really. Use at your own risk and hopefully enjoy :).”

Was this helpful?


Thanks for your feedback!

Related posts:
  1. Tinder might make you feel less satisfied with your appearance and lowers self-esteem
  2. Tinder-like app for orangutans lets females in zoos chose who they mate with
  3. Tinder usage caused STD spike, officials say
  4. The last male white rhino boldly goes on Tinder to save its species
  5. Breastfeeding changed tooth shape in pre-Native American people
Tags: bioRxivJeff LeekPaprreviewsscientific papertinder

ADVERTISEMENT
  • News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Future
  • Space
  • Features
  • Reviews
  • More
  • About Us

© 2007-2021 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • News
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Future
  • Space
  • Features
    • Natural Sciences
    • Health
    • History and Humanities
    • Space & Astronomy
    • Culture
    • Technology
    • Resources
  • Reviews
  • More
    • Agriculture
    • Anthropology
    • Biology
    • Chemistry
    • Electronics
    • Geology
    • History
    • Mathematics
    • Nanotechnology
    • Economics
    • Paleontology
    • Physics
    • Psychology
    • Robotics
  • About Us
    • About
    • The Team
    • Advertise
    • Contribute
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact

© 2007-2021 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

Don’t you want to get smarter every day?

YES, sign me up!

Over 35,000 subscribers can’t be wrong. Don’t worry, we never spam. By signing up you agree to our privacy policy.

✕
ZME Science News

FREE
VIEW