There is an awful lot of redundancy and wasted effort that goes into most papers. From introductions that need to be rewritten every time (when linking to a solid introduction would be both better and less time consuming). Each piece of a piece of a full paper (intro, data, analysis, ...) could be peer-reviewed and published individually. A full paper could then be built from these paper-bricks. Anyway, recommend reading the paper as it's well written and clear.
"Formalize the structure of papers, such that each paper is composed of one or many (clearly marked) of the following "sections" ("bricks"):
symbol description my description
"I" Introduction ("domain intro")
"PS" Problem Statement ("specific problem")
"HLSI" High-Level Solution Idea ("solution vision")
"D" Details ("solution implementation")
"PE" Performance Evaluation ("benchmarks")
and each "brick" must reference one or many bricks of the same or "earlier" level, forming a global graph."
-------- >8 ---------- >8 ----------
Some of the advantages:
* no need to rephrase the same "intro" in every domain paper, just reference an existing "I" brick;
* a benchmark (PE) can just reference many "D"s;
* one can easily work "backwards" -- e.g. start with a benchmark (PE) of existing implementations and already publish it, then propose a new implementation (D);
* if someone publishes a similar paper before you, with similar "vision/idea" (HLSI), this doesn't totally destroy your publication, as you can still publish the part with an alternative implementation (D);
* "I+PS+HLSI or I+HLSI: This is what some communities call a "vision paper" [...]"
I think a positive side-effect of PaperBricks idea would be full standardization of notation. It's tiring to look up meaning of variables as they differ with each author.
My summary of the idea:
There is an awful lot of redundancy and wasted effort that goes into most papers. From introductions that need to be rewritten every time (when linking to a solid introduction would be both better and less time consuming). Each piece of a piece of a full paper (intro, data, analysis, ...) could be peer-reviewed and published individually. A full paper could then be built from these paper-bricks. Anyway, recommend reading the paper as it's well written and clear.
There's also a YouTube video by the author explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sorEcLjN04.