3 ms·
Peer review is still a good way to ensure some semblance of quality. But there are clearly better ways.
by robg 3y ago
Peer review is still a good way to ensure some semblance of quality. But there are clearly better ways.
- mjburgess 3y agometareviews & literature reviews can serve the same functions it's quite reasonable to have a policy not to cite an original source without a literature review attached
- ska 3y ago> metareviews & literature reviews can serve the same functions these are not the same functions.
- alexb_ 3y agoPeer review is a recent development in science that has slowed scientific progress immensly, as well as making all papers read for reviewers and not actually be understandable for other people to read them. If you've ever seen a scientific paper before peer review, you can see that they were actually made to be understandable (unlike papers today). There's a reason Einstein hated peer review. Peer review is an experiment on the scientific method, one that has failed spectacularly.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoAnyone who wants their paper to be understood by a non-expert audience can write a blog post explaining the work. Here’s a great example [1]. Papers have become more intricate and technical because science has become more intricate and technical, in some cases because we found subtle errors and exceptions in the more casual early papers! [1] https://thegradient.pub/othello/ https://thegradient.pub/othello/