5 ms·
I came across this recently and your post made me wonder what you'd think of it: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review ht
by dataduck 4y ago
I came across this recently and your post made me wonder what you'd think of it:
https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall...
I won't butcher the piece with a poor summary but it's a critical look at the peer review process.
- icelancer 4y agoI've read this post - broadly, I agree very much with it. Unfortunately, inertia is a hell of a thing. Science is stuck with peer review for a few more decades at the very least. Many postgrads would do unspeakable things and commit various crimes to become a first author on a paper accepted into Nature, for example. It just means everything to academics. arXiv is the biggest undermining threat to the professional peer review process, but in a weird way, it also bolsters it. Anyway, at least Computer Science doesn't care much about academic journals. Hacker culture remains fairly strong.
- colonwqbang 4y ago> arXiv is the biggest undermining threat to the professional peer review process, but in a weird way, it also bolsters it. How do you mean?
- JPLeRouzic 4y agoI am a layperson but I guess arXiv moderation is not different from peer-review. Some authors have voiced concern over the lack of transparency in the arXiv screening process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv#Moderation_process_and_endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv#Moderation_process_and_e...