5 ms·

> your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't peer review usually v

> your tax dollars are being wasted but the bulk of waste is on worthless, lazy, BS spouting academics Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't peer review usually volunteer work? With the job of the (usually paid) editors to select reviewers with a track record of basic competence. > Do you really think "the academy" couldn't have come to some consensus on how to allocate review duties for papers that are uploaded/stored/submitted there? Actually, there are several proposals! One such system is https://openreview.net/about https://openreview.net/about – it's not the first I've seen, but it's the most recent. (I first learned about these things from a fictional proposal in a Pokémon fanwork: it's far from the realm of niche.) > Journal (and conference) reviewers are completely anonymous To reduce the incentives for nepotistic anti-scientific behaviour. The system's flawed, sure, but it works how it does for a reason.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> with a track record of basic competence. You need to ask yourself how that track record is constituted ie what metrics decide basic competence. Hint: it's not anything that resembles an objective measure of ability or diligence or literally anything. Another hint: it's *extremely* common for PIs to pawn review duties off on grad students - I review papers for my advisor all the time and I have been since my first year. > To reduce the incentives for nepotistic anti-scientific behaviour. This is the thin veil that everyone hides behind to cover up the greater harm of inscrutability^1; everyone knows what everyone else is working on in any field. At this point in my career (I'm towards the end of my PhD) I could tell you which group wrote the paper (if it's in my area) just by reading the abstract. And if you're thinking to yourself well what about new entrants into the field? There's no such thing - you do not learn XYZ hyper niche thing without being part of a long lineage of forebears doing XYZ thing. And if it does so somehow happen, like a student is doing something completely different from their advisor and so they're not trying to publish in familiar venues, well guess what they get face looooong odds getting their work accepted (ask me how I know :) ^1 Like come to think of it, recently I've been reading that the conservative judges on SCOTUS think proceedings should be closed. And you could make some sort of similar nepotism case about that, or some other conflict of interest type thing (in favor of closing the proceedings) but we all recognize that fundamental to a free and fair process is that it's open and auditable.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  > it's *extremely* common for PIs to pawn review duties off on grad students Unless the reviews are submitted in the grad students' names, that sounds like academic misconduct. Can you “anonymously” report this without too much backlash? (I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet.) > This is the thin veil that everyone hides behind There are many places in society where we do this. The thin veil of politeness, lies that everyone knows are lies – like asking "How are you?" without actually caring how the other person is, and answering "Quite well, thank you." when you're neither okay nor thankful. It makes no sense, but people would behave worse without the illusion. I know not whether the benefits of transparency would outweigh that.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    > I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet. You expect a first year junior grad student (e.g., me before i was inured to it) to blow the whistle on their senior, well respected, famous, advisor? Is this a joke? You think change like this happens bottoms up from the indentured servant^1 class? lol. > It makes no sense, but people would behave worse without the illusion. wut. we've taken a large step off the sane road here. democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. if you want to debate me on this you're gonna have to whip out a whole lot of philosophy, history, data, etc. ^1 do you know how many phd students in the US are foreign nationals on student visas? if you had to pick between majority and minority which one would you pick? hint: you're wrong it's the other one.
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      I would expect to be able to raise such concerns myself, and not face much blowback for doing so; however, attitudes towards academic conduct vary around the world. There are even places where you can't report data fabrication without risking your entire academic career. > democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations).

mathisfun123 3y ago

> with a track record of basic competence. You need to ask yourself how that track record is constituted ie what metrics decide basic competence. Hint: it's not anything that resembles an objective measure of ability or diligence or literally anything. Another hint: it's *extremely* common for PIs to pawn review duties off on grad students - I review papers for my advisor all the time and I have been since my first year. > To reduce the incentives for nepotistic anti-scientific behaviour. This is the thin veil that everyone hides behind to cover up the greater harm of inscrutability^1; everyone knows what everyone else is working on in any field. At this point in my career (I'm towards the end of my PhD) I could tell you which group wrote the paper (if it's in my area) just by reading the abstract. And if you're thinking to yourself well what about new entrants into the field? There's no such thing - you do not learn XYZ hyper niche thing without being part of a long lineage of forebears doing XYZ thing. And if it does so somehow happen, like a student is doing something completely different from their advisor and so they're not trying to publish in familiar venues, well guess what they get face looooong odds getting their work accepted (ask me how I know :) ^1 Like come to think of it, recently I've been reading that the conservative judges on SCOTUS think proceedings should be closed. And you could make some sort of similar nepotism case about that, or some other conflict of interest type thing (in favor of closing the proceedings) but we all recognize that fundamental to a free and fair process is that it's open and auditable.

wizzwizz4 3y ago
> it's *extremely* common for PIs to pawn review duties off on grad students Unless the reviews are submitted in the grad students' names, that sounds like academic misconduct. Can you “anonymously” report this without too much backlash? (I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet.) > This is the thin veil that everyone hides behind There are many places in society where we do this. The thin veil of politeness, lies that everyone knows are lies – like asking "How are you?" without actually caring how the other person is, and answering "Quite well, thank you." when you're neither okay nor thankful. It makes no sense, but people would behave worse without the illusion. I know not whether the benefits of transparency would outweigh that.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > I assume the answer is no: you clearly know it's wrong, and haven't done anything about it yet. You expect a first year junior grad student (e.g., me before i was inured to it) to blow the whistle on their senior, well respected, famous, advisor? Is this a joke? You think change like this happens bottoms up from the indentured servant^1 class? lol. > It makes no sense, but people would behave worse without the illusion. wut. we've taken a large step off the sane road here. democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. if you want to debate me on this you're gonna have to whip out a whole lot of philosophy, history, data, etc. ^1 do you know how many phd students in the US are foreign nationals on student visas? if you had to pick between majority and minority which one would you pick? hint: you're wrong it's the other one.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    I would expect to be able to raise such concerns myself, and not face much blowback for doing so; however, attitudes towards academic conduct vary around the world. There are even places where you can't report data fabrication without risking your entire academic career. > democratic/fair/equitable processes are open. full stop. Secret ballots. Double-blind medical trials. The sealing of juvenile court records. It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be: what might make sense in one academic field (e.g. applied particle physics) might be total nonsense in another (e.g. partial differential equations).