3 ms·

>We don’t know how much worse the scientific literature would be without peer review all of human history prior to the last 50 years? The term "peer review" di

• fastaguy88 4y ago
  I do not understand this argument. Just as peer review is relatively young, so is the massive expansion of the scientific literature. Perhaps in the 50’s (when there was peer review, at least in biochemistry and microbiology), an investigator might reasonably believe they were familiar with most of the literature in their field. That has not been true for decades. So, by volume (if not impact), most scientific results are young and have been subject to peer review. Perhaps part of the argument has to do with the specific form of peer review. In the 18th and 19th centuries, much more science was communicated via correspondence and books. But I suspect there was still a review process, just one that was less democratic and more dependent on reputation.
• wolverine876 4y ago
  The progress of science has never been greater than under the peer review system. I'm sure we can improve it, but if science since the 1960s is a failure, than almost everything in human history is a failure.
  • shrubby 4y ago
    The planet is burning and a lot of people are dying from preventable diseases and malnutrition. So yes. Practically everything in human history is a failure.
    • wolverine876 4y ago
      Far fewer people die of preventable diseases and malnutrition than any point in history; we've accomplished incredible things, especially since 1960. What are we writing this on?