3 ms·
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 o
by 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 agoIt sounds like you're saying that experimentalists rely on peer review as a way to fraudulently cover up their shoddy experimental methods.
- noobermin 9y agoHmm, 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.