3 ms·
My sense is that this would prevent 98% of papers in the social sciences from ever being published. How do you decide whether to renew a researcher's position w
by Helmut10001 2y ago
My sense is that this would prevent 98% of papers in the social sciences from ever being published. How do you decide whether to renew a researcher's position when the average time to get a single paper through peer review is 5+ years (my average is 2-3 contract renewals per year)? This is not compatible with today's pace.
I am not saying that all this is a desirable situation. It is very unfortunate, and I wish there was an easy solution. My first research paper took 5 major revisions and 6 years to get through peer review. All the reviewers criticized was the wording and my unwillingness to conform to the accepted views in that particular community; I almost lost my job over this, but once the paper was accepted, it won several awards. All of this leads me to believe that peer review is very subjective and prone to error, and I don't have a solution for that.
- concordDance 2y ago> My sense is that this would prevent 98% of papers in the social sciences from ever being published. Given the quality of the social science papers I've read this seems like it would be a good thing IFF the 98% cut were the bottom 98%.
- nimish 2y agoThe goal of science isn't to publish papers, it's to investigate hypotheses. If 98% of social science papers cannot be replicated then that's an indictment of social science, not the requirement to replicate. I suspect a lot of "hard" science papers would be caught as well so it's a necessary quality control method
- BenFranklin100 2y agoIf we recalibrate the hype, results previously considered too minor to publish, will now be publishable.