3 ms·

That's a terrible idea. Science shouldn't rely on "trust", and reviewers and reviewees should be anonymous to one another. A fact stands on it's own; it's not d

• 8bitsrule 9y ago
  "Shouldn't?" True, in an ideal world. But in this one, a 'fact' stands on its own if it can be replicated. Which is only possible for someone who has the expertise, time, and inclination. And that's the easier part; arguing the conclusions drawn from observations is where it can get really gritty ... particularly when the conclusions discredit the work of others. Much of classical science was constructed on a basis of reputation amongst familiar colleagues... a form of trust. But a close look at history reveals that factions and bias have always existed. Times have changed, and everyone can't know everyone else. Another corrosive modern 'fact' is that science is largely driven by who will pay for it. E.g., government and corporate interests may be less concerned with facts than the 'right' facts.