4 ms·
Despite the helpfulness of quick exchange of laboratory results via preprint, peer review is clearly going to remain central to the scientific process.
by chrisbrandow 6y ago
Despite the helpfulness of quick exchange of laboratory results via preprint, peer review is clearly going to remain central to the scientific process.
- rootusrootus 6y agoI completely agree. It seems great now, because the situation is dire, to get preprints instantly as they become available. But people don't seem to realize just how much crap gets into preprints and ultimately fails during peer review. There's so much garbage out there now, and it can and will (and probably already is) be used as just more political fodder. I like reading preprints as much as the next geek, but I think we might ultimately be better served if the papers weren't released until after peer review.
- James_Henry 6y agoDo you think that people will start to read preprints for what they really are? If that's the case then I think they'll never go away. Open review by peers before publication is incredibly useful compared to peer review. Imagine if these 3 papers could have been scrutinized before getting that Lancet peer review stamp that has led to bad policy decisions and research decisions by so many. People would have started questioning Surgisphere's data sooner and wouldn't have taken their results so seriously.
- James_Henry 6y agoI'm not sure I understand where this comment is coming from. The 3 Surgisphere papers were peer reviewed.