It couldn't be just any online forum, though. It would have to support scientists' specific needs. It would need to host datasets; make it easy to create and reference charts, diagrams, tables, figures; track post edits and the reasons for them; disincentivize both lengthy and low-content posts; provide advanced search and filter functionality; assist with jargon control; and support consensus building and measurement.

And then there's need for accessibility, for users with physical or mental handicaps, and for users with limited computing and bandwidth resources.

> It would need to host datasets

I haven't seen ieeexplore hosting datasets and yet we pay them to publish our stuff. Heck, most people don't even bother with publishing code or data, because there is very little or even negative incentive to do so.

The system is completely borked, because most people publish papers in order to advance their PhD studies, not their respective fields.

Yes of course. Github works for some part. Or Arxiv.

>Publishing by itself does little to advance science

I strongly disagree. Publishing advances science the same way communication advances culture. Imagine Einstein didn't published any of his work. How many decades back in technology and quality of life we'd have been now?

It's like any evolutionary beneficial trait gets transferred to all population in one generation instead of many. It saves precious time.

Let me put it this way: there is "publishing" and there's Publishing™

Before electronic communications became popular, publications would publish "letters to the editor" which were kinda like an informal paper with a partial discussion or results (some publications still do that, btw).

My point here is that Publishing™ took place of simply publishing to share results with your colleagues and now the main objectives of Publishing™ is to dodge picky reviewers and to get your publishing score up to get more grants

Thank FSM for Arxiv and for researchers sending "drafts" or "unofficial" versions around

Considering all the endless meetings, conferences and discussions scientists have to attend and find room to do research in between, I doubt that the issue is a lack of means for them to discuss...

I also highly disagree that publishing does very little to advance science, it puts a relatively self-contained result into the record. Replacing publishing with forums would be the euivalent of replacing documentation with a chat.

Lol yeah, cannot imagine equating published papers and forum posts. I knock the peer review process all the time but it is a significant hurdle that acts as a filter for all sorts of trash.