4 ms·

Filters out a lot of kook theories but I'm sure some revolutionary stuff from some Goodwill Hunting genius has been filtered out as well.

zmgsabst 4y ago
I’m not sure it filters out kook theories, given the replication crisis. Rather, journals promote well-connected kooks at the expense of less well-connected kooks and happen to occasionally publish some science as a byproduct.
Attrecomet 4y ago
Fun fact: peer review isn't gatekept. There are peer reviewed young earth creationist articles out there: https://www.cnet.com/culture/creationists-launch-peer-reviewed-journal/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/creationists-launch-peer-review... So "peer review" isn't holding back kook theories at all on its own. At best, journal prestige is bolstered by it, which the journal can then translate into holding them back. The track record is a bit unclear, though.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  I view peer review as respecting the time of the journal subscriber. Someone filters out the things that are obviously flawed before wasting everyone else's time. Journal aren't just a magic upload into scientific consciousness; it takes time and energy to read and process them.
  - Attrecomet 4y ago
    It's doing a rather bad job at filtering out obvious flaws, given the reproducibility crisis we've got on our hands. Everyone says peer review is very important, but when it comes to reviewers putting in the hard and boring work of actually checking the raw data, almost none do, so in truth, peer review is NOT important to most scientists. And we nevertheless pay the price of adhering closer to orthodoxy for it, since effort being put in is a rather superficial "this paper sounds reasonable to me" filter, perhaps with some boxes that must be checked like p-value or sample size.
- themaninthedark 4y ago
  A peer review young earth creationist journal would still gatekeep anything that did not come from a young earth perspective. >Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins The problem is that inherently peer review is designed to act as a brake: >Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. But in blocking you are going to reject ideas. >And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach How much of a problem and how many revolutionary ideas are stopped, I don't know. I am more concerned about the reproducibility problem in science.
  - Attrecomet 4y ago
    Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I didn't mean that peer reviewing doesn't lead to gatekeeping, but that simply making something peer reviewed isn't enough, because ludicrously bad attempts at science can be peer reviewed. Peer review is also obviously a bad solution for the reproducibility problem, given that we've got the problem now, concurrent with generations of peer reviewed manuscripts.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

zmgsabst 4y ago

I’m not sure it filters out kook theories, given the replication crisis. Rather, journals promote well-connected kooks at the expense of less well-connected kooks and happen to occasionally publish some science as a byproduct.

Attrecomet 4y ago

Fun fact: peer review isn't gatekept. There are peer reviewed young earth creationist articles out there: https://www.cnet.com/culture/creationists-launch-peer-reviewed-journal/ https://www.cnet.com/culture/creationists-launch-peer-review... So "peer review" isn't holding back kook theories at all on its own. At best, journal prestige is bolstered by it, which the journal can then translate into holding them back. The track record is a bit unclear, though.

saalweachter 4y ago
I view peer review as respecting the time of the journal subscriber. Someone filters out the things that are obviously flawed before wasting everyone else's time. Journal aren't just a magic upload into scientific consciousness; it takes time and energy to read and process them.
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  It's doing a rather bad job at filtering out obvious flaws, given the reproducibility crisis we've got on our hands. Everyone says peer review is very important, but when it comes to reviewers putting in the hard and boring work of actually checking the raw data, almost none do, so in truth, peer review is NOT important to most scientists. And we nevertheless pay the price of adhering closer to orthodoxy for it, since effort being put in is a rather superficial "this paper sounds reasonable to me" filter, perhaps with some boxes that must be checked like p-value or sample size.
themaninthedark 4y ago
A peer review young earth creationist journal would still gatekeep anything that did not come from a young earth perspective. >Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins The problem is that inherently peer review is designed to act as a brake: >Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. But in blocking you are going to reject ideas. >And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach How much of a problem and how many revolutionary ideas are stopped, I don't know. I am more concerned about the reproducibility problem in science.
- Attrecomet 4y ago
  Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I didn't mean that peer reviewing doesn't lead to gatekeeping, but that simply making something peer reviewed isn't enough, because ludicrously bad attempts at science can be peer reviewed. Peer review is also obviously a bad solution for the reproducibility problem, given that we've got the problem now, concurrent with generations of peer reviewed manuscripts.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]