4 ms·

> If the 'shills' are wrong, then the peer review should take care of them. That's not what peer review does. Peer review isn't investigative journalism, nor i

• nickff 11y ago
  Peer review is used as a way of determining whether the methodologies or underlying logic used in a study are flawed (in a provable way), and what the severity of the flaw(s) is/are. >"Peer review isn't... designed to figure out if the results of the study are correct or incorrect." There is no way of verifying the correctness of most studies and papers; they are simply examined for flaws. I do not see any reason why papers by 'good' authors should be examined less critically than those by 'shills'.
  • icegreentea 11y ago
    That's the point. If you publish anonymously then you can publish methodologies and analysis that is up to "gold standard" while completely falsifying/manipulating data. The current system mostly relies on reputation and professional ethics/pride to filter out that kind of behavior even before the publication stage. The cost to replicate experiments is typically high - even in our current system we cannot replicate to the degree that we want. One presumes that in an anonymous system, the problem would get even worse.