3 ms·
One of the key factors missing in this discussion is that there are two overlapping forms of peer review: One which is merely technical, checking for correctnes
by murphyslab 9y ago
One of the key factors missing in this discussion is that there are two overlapping forms of peer review: One which is merely technical, checking for correctness and completeness. The other is a much more subjective form, in which a reviewer is asked to comment on the "merit" or potential "impact" of a given study. The former is often necessary, as honestly there's a lot of crap out there, but more often it comes down to minor details that the expertise of another scientist's specialty can best address. The downside is that this can inspire a certain pedantry and pressure to undertake what is essentially unnecessary formatting.
The latter is essentially the real problem of science in its current state: prestige. There is no reason to not just publish everything in a mega-journal that doesn't consider "merit". It would mean more replication studies and less publication bias against "negative" results (i.e. this drug didn't work as hoped). High-prestige journals also tend to charge correspondingly higher subscription fees, while adding nothing special to the scholarly ecosystem, beyond delaying (often by months) the eventual publication elsewhere. However careers are made on publishing in high-prestige journals.
A recent tweet makes one wonder what the value of high-prestige journals in the first place, if they don't even bother to correct or improve the scholarly record. A PNAS editor's rejection of a paper with greater statistical power and improved methodology, but which fails to replicate a highly cited PNAS paper was on the basis that "in these days of computer literature searches, I see no reason a journal needs to feel compelled to publish follow-up papers on previously published work. The follow-up paper would be found by those interested where ever it is published" https://twitter.com/mendel_random/status/917115714544324609 https://twitter.com/mendel_random/status/917115714544324609