4 ms·
Yes, but that's only true if peer review is functioning as intended. Peer review has been gamed and is broken. Science is a career and an industry and individua
by fwungy 4y ago
Yes, but that's only true if peer review is functioning as intended. Peer review has been gamed and is broken. Science is a career and an industry and individuals have figured out how to protect their fiefdoms within it.
The financial incentives in pharmaceutical research are particularly corrupting due to their size.
- mrguyorama 4y ago"Peer review" is not limited to the preprint proofreading most journals do. That is just a minimal filter to verify a paper doesn't have any clear or obvious mistakes. That's why actually fraudulent papers still get printed. The actual "peer review" is when people try to make similar observations to what you did (replication) or when people try to build on your work and fail to. This is why we know the amyloid hypothesis isn't very good even though it regularly passes "peer review" and gets into journals: We can't build on it and things it predicts don't happen
- fwungy 4y agoReplication has reached crisis proportions now, especially in fields like medicine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis