4 ms·
There is an increasing awareness of the "reproducibility crisis"[1] where it seems a large portion of published scientific studies have dubious findings. I won
by brookside 9y ago
There is an increasing awareness of the "reproducibility crisis"[1] where it seems a large portion of published scientific studies have dubious findings.
I wonder if this is another argument to overthrow Elsevier to as clearly their peer review for publication is a poor filter. Or, is it possible the peer review process will become even weaker in a new more open paradigm?
[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
- Vinnl 9y agoIt's not Elsevier-specific peer review that's under scrutiny, but institutionalised peer review in general. That's said, that's still only among a minority of academics, and considering academia is pretty conservative, I don't think that that will play a large role in this situation.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoMaybe for open Internet publishing, instead of publish/don't publish peer review, it'd make sense to have a rating of the reproducibility. If you could search only for reproducible papers that met a threshold, you'd know what you were reading.
- Vinnl 9y agoUnfortunately, that requires people to actually attempt to reproduce papers and to publish about that, and often nobody wants to fund that.