3 ms·
> Formerly known as "peer review". An in-depth review of a paper in advance of publication is common (although that system isn't as reliable as had one been as
by lutusp 10y ago
> Formerly known as "peer review".
An in-depth review of a paper in advance of publication is common (although that system isn't as reliable as had one been assumed). Such an exhaustive review after publication is rare, for multiple reasons.
One serious problem with post-publication review is that the original data are rarely made available to reviewers. For example, academic critics of the work of Diederik Stapel couldn't justify revoking his Ph.D. because the original data that might have proved his fraud no longer existed. He eventually voluntarily gave up his degree[1], possibly to try to avoid a deeper investigation into his behavior.
1. http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dutch_psychologist_diederik_stapel_relinquishes_his_phd-84542 http://www.science20.com/cool-links/dutch_psychologist_diede...
- apathy 10y agoI love how you believe that most reviewers have time to conduct a thorough review for a journal, most of the time. As opposed to something much closer to "LGTM!" With some "but be sure to cite my vaguely-relevant work in Foo et al, 1952".
- lutusp 10y ago> I love how you believe that most reviewers have time to conduct a thorough review for a journal, most of the time. Your objection is to a position I never took -- in fact I suggested the opposite. The depth of a review is gauged by its length, not its accuracy or objectivity.
- apathy 10y agoAh, OK. I think we are on the same page. My mistake.