2 ms·
>This is a rather self-aggrandizing view, and I think it speaks to the level of ego that underpins a lot of the discussion on here. I'm not so sure about that.
by Grimblewald 3y ago
>This is a rather self-aggrandizing view, and I think it speaks to the level of ego that underpins a lot of the discussion on here.
I'm not so sure about that. I've read a lot of things that should have never left peer review or editing stages, while some of the most impotent papers for my field never left preprint.
Overall I think the most imprortant step of peer review is you as the reader in the field. Peer review should catch the worst offenders out, saving us all some time, but it should never be viewed as a seal of approval. Everything you read should be critically evaluated as if it were a preprint anyway.
- pyth0 3y agoI realize some people have taken my comment to be speaking on the efficacy of the peer review process but that was not my intent. I have no experience reading or reviewing papers, or with the journal publication process. My point was more to the fact that HN is a public forum in which anyone can participate and so elevating it above (what I hope are) subject matter experts seemed rather arrogant. To be fair, the OP has since expanded with a more complete comment and it seems to be a similar sentiment to the things you and a couple others have shared.
- nomel 3y ago> is a public forum in which anyone can participate I don't think "participate" and "leave a comment" are the same thing. A random person most likely wouldn't be able to follow or contribute to the conversation. They could only leave a comment. It's a bit pedantic, but noise usually sinks to the bottom.