3 ms·
Sure, in an ideal world we’d have some kind of review, but what we have now seems largely ineffective.
by virtuallynathan 5y ago
Sure, in an ideal world we’d have some kind of review, but what we have now seems largely ineffective.
- Guvante 5y agoExcept you are missing a huge huge part of what you linked: > We conclude that the reviewing process for the 2014 conference was good for identifying poor papers When it comes to peer review that is the actual goal. Have a filter that prevents bad things from getting published. In an ideal world we would have a process that allows good papers to be published as well. However I think we can all agree that is a secondary concern. Especially since pre-publish announcements are common anyway, so it isn't like no one is looking at papers that aren't published.