3 ms·

Reviews shouldn't be opinion, but facts. Those facts can then be disseminated to larger audiences. The incentive is to ensure that only factual information is c

Reviews shouldn't be opinion, but facts. Those facts can then be disseminated to larger audiences. The incentive is to ensure that only factual information is claimed in publication so that everyone else can be as informed as possible, thereby (hopefully) allowing us to all make better decisions (and, perhaps, this could even accelerate the above described process).

apathy 10y ago
Every time you use the word "should" you beg the question. Why, exactly, are incentives aligned to make it so? Or is the problem that the incentives are not in fact set up to encourage the desired outcome? Anything else is wishful thinking. People seldom do what they know to be right; they do what is convenient, then repent. It follows that one must make the right thing the convenient or rewarding thing if one wishes to see humans doing it. By and large, people are somewhat predictable. This can be used for good as well as the more familiar evil uses.
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Reviews should be facts by definition of a review (as I use it), so the question is not begged. The incentives are 'aligned' that way because it is the only way to benefit. Publishing into an echo chamber (or void) is not science, by definition.
  - apathy 10y ago
    You've been out of academia for a while, I take it? Publons (mostly uncited) are the coin of the realm. I don't usually bother submitting a methods paper unless I know a few citations are in the tank, but some people publish just to get their metrics up. A lot of people, really. The more I think about it the luckier I feel not to have to continually publish jackoff papers. If I wasn't so lucky in terms of collaborators... Well, I guess I'd GTFO of academia, really. Lots of folks have to "show productivity" with bullshit papers that don't matter and no one reads. Needless to say, reviewing such papers can be a rather dull affair.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

apathy 10y ago

Every time you use the word "should" you beg the question. Why, exactly, are incentives aligned to make it so? Or is the problem that the incentives are not in fact set up to encourage the desired outcome? Anything else is wishful thinking. People seldom do what they know to be right; they do what is convenient, then repent. It follows that one must make the right thing the convenient or rewarding thing if one wishes to see humans doing it. By and large, people are somewhat predictable. This can be used for good as well as the more familiar evil uses.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
Reviews should be facts by definition of a review (as I use it), so the question is not begged. The incentives are 'aligned' that way because it is the only way to benefit. Publishing into an echo chamber (or void) is not science, by definition.
- apathy 10y ago
  You've been out of academia for a while, I take it? Publons (mostly uncited) are the coin of the realm. I don't usually bother submitting a methods paper unless I know a few citations are in the tank, but some people publish just to get their metrics up. A lot of people, really. The more I think about it the luckier I feel not to have to continually publish jackoff papers. If I wasn't so lucky in terms of collaborators... Well, I guess I'd GTFO of academia, really. Lots of folks have to "show productivity" with bullshit papers that don't matter and no one reads. Needless to say, reviewing such papers can be a rather dull affair.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]