2 ms·
Not doing much at all is a damn sight better than doing nothing, which appears to have been the case here.
by stonogo 4y ago
Not doing much at all is a damn sight better than doing nothing, which appears to have been the case here.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoPeer review does not look at data integrity, and rarely looks at methods. Studies have been done that show that peer review only catches something as gross as improper participant randomization 50% of the time, and finer details less often. At a higher level, the purpose of peer review is to determine if the results of a paper are prestigious enough to be included in a journal and should not be construed to impart validity. My personal opinion is that more people shouldn't move towards self-publishing and drop the facade of Journal peer review all together.
- stonogo 4y agoYes, these papers would be unobjectionable on a blog somewhere. Meanwhile, "x isn't perfect so we should do nothing instead" isn't really a useful policy.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoThats not really what I was trying to say. I am saying that journals not only aren't perfect, but that they are actively bad. People seem to think that peer review and publication is something entirely different than what it is, and therein lies the harm. Every paper is basically already a blog post, and people think that they are not. My proposal isn't to do nothing, but that most papers should be freely published in a forum similar to xariv, and feedback should also be freely published in xariv. This is far better than the current system where papers take years to be published, still aren't vetted for validity, and any criticism takes years to be published if journals are even willing to publish it at all.