4 ms·

The problem is not really author-paid fees. It's the fact that paper count and citation count is so important in the first place. Actually, if you want to fix

The problem is not really author-paid fees. It's the fact that paper count and citation count is so important in the first place. Actually, if you want to fix the problem, peer-review should be rewarded rather than publications, with accurate peer-review and unbiased evaluations. Publication count should not be nearly as valued, and peer-review should not be anonymous.

knighthack 2y ago
> accurate peer-review and unbiased evaluations And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be. Until that can be ascertained, I don't see how peer review is fundamentally superior. I would even argue that peer review can be detrimental to true science, especially those on the frontier.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be. Peer review of peer review. Instead of a couple of scientists looking at it, the peer-review process should be entirely open. So other people can scrutinize it.
bachmeier 2y ago
> peer-review should not be anonymous How do you prevent movement to an equilibrium where reviewers give favorable reviews to the reviewers of their own papers?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  > How do you prevent movement to an equilibrium where reviewers give favorable reviews to the reviewers of their own papers? Peer-review of peer review. If all peer review is public, then people can analyse the trends.
  - adr1an 2y ago
    It's peer reviewers all the way down then ;)
RobotToaster 2y ago
What about those who peer review papers that are later retracted?
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Well, if the paper used falsified data, the authors should be punished. We can't expect all falsified data to be found, as some people are really good at falsification.

knighthack 2y ago

> accurate peer-review and unbiased evaluations And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be. Until that can be ascertained, I don't see how peer review is fundamentally superior. I would even argue that peer review can be detrimental to true science, especially those on the frontier.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> And how do you even guarantee this, 'accurate' and 'unbiased'? Any form of peer review will always have a slant, no matter how 'objective' it is intended to be. Peer review of peer review. Instead of a couple of scientists looking at it, the peer-review process should be entirely open. So other people can scrutinize it.

bachmeier 2y ago

> peer-review should not be anonymous How do you prevent movement to an equilibrium where reviewers give favorable reviews to the reviewers of their own papers?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
> How do you prevent movement to an equilibrium where reviewers give favorable reviews to the reviewers of their own papers? Peer-review of peer review. If all peer review is public, then people can analyse the trends.
- adr1an 2y ago
  It's peer reviewers all the way down then ;)

RobotToaster 2y ago

What about those who peer review papers that are later retracted?

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Well, if the paper used falsified data, the authors should be punished. We can't expect all falsified data to be found, as some people are really good at falsification.