3 ms·

https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405 https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-ein... This article me

https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405 https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-ein... This article mentions Einstein being offended that his paper was submitted to peer review by Physical Review, and submitting it elsewhere instead: "We (Mr. Rosen and I) had sent you our manuscript for publication and had not authorised you to show it to specialists before it is printed. I see no reason to address the – in any case erroneous – comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere." I just recently ended up there via this blog: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall... which argues, not unconvincingly IMO, that peer review is a failed experiment which tries to stop bad science at the price of also stopping brilliant, unconventional science, where instead we would profit more from letting the scientific public do the sorting instead of hand-picked specialists. The author phrases it as science being as strong as its strongest links, not as weak as the weakest one, and we should do everything to get the brilliant crazy ideas.

OJFord 4y ago
> the price of also stopping brilliant, unconventional science, where instead we would profit more from letting the scientific public Also currently on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257150 In brief, London 'man off the street' solves 20k year Ice Age drawings mystery, published in Cambridge Archaeological Journal via contact with Durham professor. (And he is first author.) I don't say that to disagree with you by the way - it's undoubtedly a rare example.
dguest 4y ago
These days Einstein could just put his paper on arXiv and worry about publication later. The physics community goes nuts about arXiv results all the time. There's zero review if you have a university email (or national lab etc). I tend to agree that peer review has flaws. But given the ease with which someone can publish anything with no review whatsoever it seems reasonable that peer review might shift to fill a niche that is slower and less disruptive.

OJFord 4y ago

> the price of also stopping brilliant, unconventional science, where instead we would profit more from letting the scientific public Also currently on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34257150 In brief, London 'man off the street' solves 20k year Ice Age drawings mystery, published in Cambridge Archaeological Journal via contact with Durham professor. (And he is first author.) I don't say that to disagree with you by the way - it's undoubtedly a rare example.

dguest 4y ago

These days Einstein could just put his paper on arXiv and worry about publication later. The physics community goes nuts about arXiv results all the time. There's zero review if you have a university email (or national lab etc). I tend to agree that peer review has flaws. But given the ease with which someone can publish anything with no review whatsoever it seems reasonable that peer review might shift to fill a niche that is slower and less disruptive.