5 ms·

I like to think of "peer review" in the same way as "peer code review". Just because someone looked at it and approved it doesn't mean that it is free of shortc

I like to think of "peer review" in the same way as "peer code review". Just because someone looked at it and approved it doesn't mean that it is free of shortcomings and defects.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Not just "peer code review" from a good friend or someone working on the same project as you - a review from somebody who has a ton of stuff to review at once, in many different areas, and very limited time to do it.
- lazide 4y ago
  Still better than something someone didn’t even bother trying to peer review, usually.
  - lvass 4y ago
    Not always. As academia becomes increasingly autocratic and contaminated by power, peer reviews become a marker for group-think, and placing relevance into peer review is a mechanism to empower the oligarchy and suppress technical dissidence, therefore anti-scientific.
- HelloMcFly 4y ago
  I do peer review, and know colleagues that do as well. I'd say the median number of articles reviewed per person in a given year is 10. I don't claim to represent most reviewers, but I also don't think a presumption that reviewers primarily only have time to half-ass it is fair either.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I'd say the median number of articles reviewed per person in a given year is 10. That's a pretty light annual workload. How do you get to be one of those people? Or do those people have other work to do?
    - NoSorryCannot 4y ago
      They are other researchers in the field. Literally, your peers. Yes, they have other work to do.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Yes, I'm aware of those things. I'm pointing out that the number of papers someone reviews in a year is not even distantly related to the amount of attention they have available to devote to the job.
- rat9988 4y ago
  That hasn't been my experience in academia. In peer review you can get very high quality feedback and critics. The system has been great for the overall quality.
  - yupyup54133 4y ago
    Someone is wrong on the internet!

I like to think of "peer review" in the same way as "peer code review". Just because someone looked at it and approved it doesn't mean that it is free of shortcomings and defects.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Not just "peer code review" from a good friend or someone working on the same project as you - a review from somebody who has a ton of stuff to review at once, in many different areas, and very limited time to do it.

lazide 4y ago
Still better than something someone didn’t even bother trying to peer review, usually.
- lvass 4y ago
  Not always. As academia becomes increasingly autocratic and contaminated by power, peer reviews become a marker for group-think, and placing relevance into peer review is a mechanism to empower the oligarchy and suppress technical dissidence, therefore anti-scientific.
HelloMcFly 4y ago
I do peer review, and know colleagues that do as well. I'd say the median number of articles reviewed per person in a given year is 10. I don't claim to represent most reviewers, but I also don't think a presumption that reviewers primarily only have time to half-ass it is fair either.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I'd say the median number of articles reviewed per person in a given year is 10. That's a pretty light annual workload. How do you get to be one of those people? Or do those people have other work to do?
  - NoSorryCannot 4y ago
    They are other researchers in the field. Literally, your peers. Yes, they have other work to do.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of those things. I'm pointing out that the number of papers someone reviews in a year is not even distantly related to the amount of attention they have available to devote to the job.
rat9988 4y ago
That hasn't been my experience in academia. In peer review you can get very high quality feedback and critics. The system has been great for the overall quality.
- yupyup54133 4y ago
  Someone is wrong on the internet!