Getting citations on published work is also validation that the research is valuable because it implies others are building on top of it, or adjacent to it, or at least recognized in some way. If works published through medschlr start getting cited through other various channels then that could boost its legitimacy. There's still the peer review problem to deal with though.

Totally @smallworlnd. Many issues to ponder especially while building a decentralized censorship resistant publishing platform like MedSchlr. Thinking about the point around the limited ability to interact with pre-print content of such kind, a gap that MedSchlr could fill since it is a Nostr native social networking knowledge commons that integrates @GitCitadel Alexandria library is infrastructure for engagement and learning that traditional platforms are without. It could be a viable tool that: 1) encourages individual learning in a novel way. In a user’s MedSchlr instance they could create lists, publish new content, remix other content with attribution, reference external links to articles using doi’s; 2) allows users to follow, comment, and synthesize related content of people they follow; 3) be a network of discovery and organic community formation not just for healthcare professionals and researchers but other users interested in medicine and health. The features and health related content are somewhat starting to take shape now, and that’s why we are building a landing page to help guide interested users. There are many things to consider like relays and quality standards. If users aren’t using the same relay how would they be able to see others content and discover new? And also how is quality determined of academic works, web-of-trust? For ‘academic’ quality publication is it enough to have a charter that notes the rules of the community and for different study publication types ensure publication guidelines with checklists like CONSORT for randomized controlled trials as an example? There may need to be a degree of centralization for certain user groups but the decentralization could help to further reach and transparency. Another aspect where MedSchlr could shine is content types. There could be transcriptions of videos, podcasts, etc. of medical and heath sciences information. This is already possible using #Alexandria. This would greatly expand what pre-print sites allow. On the note of the publishing inertia, zaps, might potentially be a way to incentivize people to publish papers on Nostr and could be indexed in MedSchlr. Professional communities could form and could create new peer-review processes using the new value incentive structure. These are all preliminary ideas to see how to leverage the MedSchlr-Alexandria-nostr ecosystem to better medical and health sciences publishing. Additional thoughts are always welcome.

@liminal 🦠 great discussion here by @smallworlnd

I'd say Alexandria is less a place for scientific publications and more a place to facilitate discussions. The things that happen before a final publication. For the medical health sciences, MedSchlr can be a place to break down studies for different audiences or even collaborating with someone else's interesting notes.