13 ms·
This is applicable to almost every research area, where the publication of peer-reviewed (PR) papers is de-facto a standard. I have a background in physics and
by ololobus 7y ago
This is applicable to almost every research area, where the publication of peer-reviewed (PR) papers is de-facto a standard. I have a background in physics and a few papers published in Q1 journals, so I heard these complaints about "peer-review pressure" many times. But the truth is somewhere in between: 1. yes, sometimes you get a stubborn reviewer and it is extremely difficult to get through, I've experienced this several times; 2. but PR still deliver a required filter against a flood of low-quality papers.
In essence, I found the note above as too emotional, since currently we have nothing better than PR of papers, review of code, etc., in order to guarantee the minimal level of quality.
- BlackFly 7y agoYou get that "flood of low-quality papers" on Arxiv but most researchers filter through papers daily and are generally capable of isolating the relevant and interesting from the dull and unimportant. Probably a lot of citations to papers are somewhat dishonest with the Arxiv version being the only version that was read. From another researcher's standpoint, the peer review is not very important: you already know if you got scooped, you already know if you find something interesting enough to study as well. Peer review seems to have a purpose but it does not seem to be a quality gate keeping purpose. Perhaps enforcing orthodoxy is the actual purpose.