3 ms·
> Research communities are unanimous in acknowledging the value of peer review > 82% agreed that standard peer review ensures high-quality work gets published
by kissickas 7y ago
> Research communities are unanimous in acknowledging the value of peer review
> 82% agreed that standard peer review ensures high-quality work gets published
How common is the view that peer review only serves as an institutional gatekeeping mechanism and harms innovation? (as I've heard Eric Weinstein charge on his podcast, The Portal)
- coughupalung 7y agoEW has a PhD but I can't seem to find any academic publications under his name. That doesn't outright mean he's wrong but it does mean that he actually has limited experience with the process. I have several and I've reviewed quite a few papers. I would say that peer review is a pretty good filter for garbage. Typically reviewers want to see shiny new ideas so if anything it over emphasizes innovation and discourages incremental improvements. As for gate keeping, I don't think so. Again, reviewers want to be WOW'd with new ideas. In general, I prefer papers from peer reviewed venues over the arXiv. Good work does get put on the arXiv though so I can't ignore it completely.
- bumby 7y ago>Typically reviewers want to see shiny new ideas so if anything it over emphasizes innovation and discourages incremental improvements. I know publications fetishize novelty, but wasn’t there research showing a high percentage of publication is either non-replicable or derivative and subsequently of little value once you remove auto-citations?