2 ms·
One issue with this is that it's a non-peer-reviewed critique of a peer-reviewed scientific article. It's of course still possible that the critique is correct
by dbdr 5mo ago
One issue with this is that it's a non-peer-reviewed critique of a peer-reviewed scientific article. It's of course still possible that the critique is correct and the article is wrong. However, you'd need to deeply understand this critique, and be at least as qualified as the reviewers to be able to convince yourself of that (or have a good reason to believe the reviewers deliberately accepted a flawed paper). Am I missing something?
- MrBuddyCasino 5mo agoIts 2026 and you still believe in peer review, I don’t know what to tell you.
- dbdr 5mo agoPeer review is imperfect, for sure. What alternative method do you recommend?
- MrBuddyCasino 5mo agoDifficult topic, too much for a HN comment. Some good starting points: https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/brief-notes-on-scientific-critique/comment/192179939 https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/brief-notes-on-scientific-critiqu...