4 ms·
The point isn't that, I think. It's that valuable reviews are easily downed out by YouTube-comment-quality reviews. Schemes like curation of reviews by up-/down
by woodson 8y ago
The point isn't that, I think. It's that valuable reviews are easily downed out by YouTube-comment-quality reviews. Schemes like curation of reviews by up-/downvoting don't work for most papers, as they are of interest to only a relatively small number of people engaged in that particular niche of scientific inquiry (which, by the way, is kind of the nature of things as a field specializes more and more). The concern is that there wouldn't be enough "genuine" people to counteract the noise.
- thrower123 8y agoI'd wager that the whole concept has staled. In 1800, when you could have the smartest polymaths in the world look at your paper, that stamp of approval meant something.
- woodson 8y agoI never looked at the peer review process in that way ("stamp of approval"). For a journal article, as long as it's not a desk-rejection (because the study is not in scope of the journal or such), it's usually an iterative process involving the authors, the reviewers, and the editor, which results in an often greatly improved article. A key person in that process is often the editor, rather than the reviewers (if they do their job well). Peer review as such does not provide much of a signal as to how important a paper is or a binary "good paper"/"bad paper" decision; ideally, it's a process that helps maintain a certain standard. Conference proceedings typically don't use this process, but (more or less) ask for a simple yes/no (or a 1-5 rating where everyone knows that it's going to be rejected if you don't give a high enough rating because of a 30% acceptance rate etc.).