5 ms·

I think the mathematical sciences see peer review as less of a requirement than the experimental -- in theory, anyone can verify a proof for themselves. But in

I think the mathematical sciences see peer review as less of a requirement than the experimental -- in theory, anyone can verify a proof for themselves. But in experimental science you really need someone familiar with the techniques to make sure that they did all the needed controls and didn't do any shortcuts and that's what peer review is useful for.

pmiller2 9y ago
I disagree. Even with the current peer review system in mathematics, false proofs have made it into the literature. Who knows how many more would creep in if we did away with peer review?
- tzahola 9y ago
  One can argue that false proofs made it into the literature because people trusted the reviewers - compare with: appeal to authority.
noobermin 9y ago
Was going to comment to say the exact same thing. OP used a paper by medical professionals to poo-poo formal peer review and then used math papers as examples of successful arxiv papers scrutinized by other scientists. After realizing that, I stopped reading the article then Googled his name, and--surprise, surprise--he's a mathematician. It will work for mathy and theoretical sciences like CS and theoretical physics, but good luck getting experimentalists to review papers for free (or at least without being asked by a journal). I'm not sure whether peer review is necessary in those cases, but the culture around more applied sciences definitely considers peer review more important, even though we routinely post to arxiv anyway.
- gowld 9y ago
  It sounds like you're saying that experimentalists rely on peer review as a way to fraudulently cover up their shoddy experimental methods.
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Hmm, if you're lab A, why would you help to do the cover up of lab B's work, especially if you might be competing with them? Scientists at least in my field don't do each others' dirty work, we're much more disconected from each other than that. Also, peer review is anonymous.

pmiller2 9y ago

I disagree. Even with the current peer review system in mathematics, false proofs have made it into the literature. Who knows how many more would creep in if we did away with peer review?

tzahola 9y ago
One can argue that false proofs made it into the literature because people trusted the reviewers - compare with: appeal to authority.

noobermin 9y ago

Was going to comment to say the exact same thing. OP used a paper by medical professionals to poo-poo formal peer review and then used math papers as examples of successful arxiv papers scrutinized by other scientists. After realizing that, I stopped reading the article then Googled his name, and--surprise, surprise--he's a mathematician. It will work for mathy and theoretical sciences like CS and theoretical physics, but good luck getting experimentalists to review papers for free (or at least without being asked by a journal). I'm not sure whether peer review is necessary in those cases, but the culture around more applied sciences definitely considers peer review more important, even though we routinely post to arxiv anyway.

gowld 9y ago
It sounds like you're saying that experimentalists rely on peer review as a way to fraudulently cover up their shoddy experimental methods.
- noobermin 9y ago
  Hmm, if you're lab A, why would you help to do the cover up of lab B's work, especially if you might be competing with them? Scientists at least in my field don't do each others' dirty work, we're much more disconected from each other than that. Also, peer review is anonymous.