4 ms·

In fields such as Math, Physics, EE, CS, and AI, "peer review" is already being replaced by open debate online. Cutting-edge research in those fields is now rou

by cs702 3y ago

In fields such as Math, Physics, EE, CS, and AI, "peer review" is already being replaced by open debate online. Cutting-edge research in those fields is now routinely posted first on repositories like arXiv, with supporting code and data made public first on sites like Github. The work is reviewed first online, in the open, in a variety of forums, including X.com (formerly Twitter). Anyone with something to contribute can participate, regardless of pedigree. It's so much better than the outdated system of "peer review," which actually isn't that old.[a] The question is: Who benefits the most from preserving the dying "peer review" system? Who loses the most from the transition to open debate? Short answer: Publishing houses and conference organizations. Neither wants the status quo to change. [a] https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ https://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific...

jltsiren 3y ago
If you are well known in your field, you don't need peer review. People will read your preprints, invite you to conferences, and follow you on your preferred platforms anyway. If you are in a well-known project, people will pay attention to your work, even if you are not famous yourself. For everyone else, there is peer review. Attention economy is unforgiving and benefits the elite. With peer review, everyone's work gets at least a minimum level of attention. Which may then lead to more attention if the work is worth it. Every serious proposal for replacing the current peer review practices must have the same feature. When someone submits new work, there must be people who have to review it. Fully voluntary reviews don't work.
- Retric 3y ago
  Peer review still occurs outside of journals, it’s simply less formalistic. One of the biggest advantage of peer review is it allows obvious corrections from a 3rd party to occur without wasting everyone in the fields time. Gatekeeping isn’t the point, increasing the signal to noise ratio is.
maleldil 3y ago
> The work is reviewed first online, in the open Some places require an anonymity period, so you have to wait until that ends to submit your paper to arXiv.
- cs702 3y ago
  There's no disagreement. I wrote "routinely," which does not mean "always."

by cs702 3y ago

jltsiren 3y ago

If you are well known in your field, you don't need peer review. People will read your preprints, invite you to conferences, and follow you on your preferred platforms anyway. If you are in a well-known project, people will pay attention to your work, even if you are not famous yourself. For everyone else, there is peer review. Attention economy is unforgiving and benefits the elite. With peer review, everyone's work gets at least a minimum level of attention. Which may then lead to more attention if the work is worth it. Every serious proposal for replacing the current peer review practices must have the same feature. When someone submits new work, there must be people who have to review it. Fully voluntary reviews don't work.

Retric 3y ago
Peer review still occurs outside of journals, it’s simply less formalistic. One of the biggest advantage of peer review is it allows obvious corrections from a 3rd party to occur without wasting everyone in the fields time. Gatekeeping isn’t the point, increasing the signal to noise ratio is.

maleldil 3y ago

> The work is reviewed first online, in the open Some places require an anonymity period, so you have to wait until that ends to submit your paper to arXiv.

cs702 3y ago
There's no disagreement. I wrote "routinely," which does not mean "always."