3 ms·

> Tenure And how do you think that gets decided? > those who get cited the most And how do you get cited without first getting published in a peer-reviewed p

by lisper 2y ago

> Tenure And how do you think that gets decided? > those who get cited the most And how do you get cited without first getting published in a peer-reviewed publication? > whoever manages to shmooze their way onto the grant review board Do you think it's possible to do that without a publication record? > whoever has been doing “good” work in a space As decided by whom? The point is that the current system is based on a small cadre of people assessing each other's work on the assumption that they are all competent and trustworthy. The bigger the community, the easier it becomes to game the system, and the bigger the incentives to do so, and so the less reliable traditional peer review becomes as a predictor of scientific quality. To say nothing of the sheer horrible inefficiency. It takes months to do something that should take days. If anything was ever ripe for disruption, it's peer review. BTW, here is an example of what happens when someone actually sets out to game the system and is fairly good at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYbmmgOss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgYbmmgOss

vlovich123 2y ago
> And how do you think that gets decided? Tenure precedes peer review afaik which I think pretty obviously negates this question - humans established tenure somehow so whatever that mechanism was. Peer review as a concept is quite old (17th century) and what these guys did on discord is peer review and collaboration. I’m assuming you’re just using shorthand to refer to journal peer review which is the more recent phenomenon. > And how do you get cited without first getting published in a peer-reviewed publication? Citations exist independently of peer review. Not sure why you think you can’t have one without the other. Journals are certainly not the only source cited. For example, math I believe doesn’t even generally use journals and yet citations are going strong there. > Do you think it's possible to do that without a publication record? Possible? Of course. Pick 10 random bureaucrats and have them pick admissions at random. Good? Well, now you seem to be arguing the pro publication position as a way of coming up with a better review board. But anyway, yes obviously there are better ways of establishing a grant review board by trying to populate it with some amount of “freethinkers”). Were agreed that the peer review system sucks for all sorts of reasons but we’re now very far afield from what I was trying to correct which is that the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews. You’d have it even if journals and publish or perish weren’t a thing.
- lisper 2y ago
  > Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 random bureaucrats I meant do you think it's possible to "shmooze [your] way onto the grant review board" without a publication record in the real world, not some counterfactual world where you have stacked the deck. > the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews I didn't say it was just the fault of peer review. What I said was that peer review was "probably in no small measure responsible for [the] replication crises", and I stand by that.
  - JadeNB 2y ago
    > > Tenure precedes peer review afaik > Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that: > The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review) but: > Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure).
    - lisper 2y ago
      > I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?

by lisper 2y ago

vlovich123 2y ago

> And how do you think that gets decided? Tenure precedes peer review afaik which I think pretty obviously negates this question - humans established tenure somehow so whatever that mechanism was. Peer review as a concept is quite old (17th century) and what these guys did on discord is peer review and collaboration. I’m assuming you’re just using shorthand to refer to journal peer review which is the more recent phenomenon. > And how do you get cited without first getting published in a peer-reviewed publication? Citations exist independently of peer review. Not sure why you think you can’t have one without the other. Journals are certainly not the only source cited. For example, math I believe doesn’t even generally use journals and yet citations are going strong there. > Do you think it's possible to do that without a publication record? Possible? Of course. Pick 10 random bureaucrats and have them pick admissions at random. Good? Well, now you seem to be arguing the pro publication position as a way of coming up with a better review board. But anyway, yes obviously there are better ways of establishing a grant review board by trying to populate it with some amount of “freethinkers”). Were agreed that the peer review system sucks for all sorts of reasons but we’re now very far afield from what I was trying to correct which is that the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews. You’d have it even if journals and publish or perish weren’t a thing.

lisper 2y ago
> Tenure precedes peer review afaik Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. > Citations exist independently of peer review To cite something there has to be something to cite. It is of course possible to cite a non-peer-reviewed publication, but in academia this is heavily frowned upon. Non-peer-reviewed is generally considered synonymous with crackpottery. > Pick 10 random bureaucrats I meant do you think it's possible to "shmooze [your] way onto the grant review board" without a publication record in the real world, not some counterfactual world where you have stacked the deck. > the replication crises has many origins and isn’t just the fault of peer reviews I didn't say it was just the fault of peer review. What I said was that peer review was "probably in no small measure responsible for [the] replication crises", and I stand by that.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > > Tenure precedes peer review afaik > Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review. I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that: > The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review) but: > Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure).
  - lisper 2y ago
    > I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?