5 ms·
It's an over reaction if you have a decade to argue with morons. I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected, then when they are finally pub
by noosphr 4mo ago
It's an over reaction if you have a decade to argue with morons.
I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected, then when they are finally published the other editors of the journal that rejected them came crawling in asking for the next paper in the series and promising the front page. Worse they ran a news story about our paper _in the journal that rejected it_ saying how groundbreaking it was.
The only people who think peer review still works are people who have never used it or people who have never had a novel idea in their lives.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hallway_monitor 4mo agoAs an outside observer, it does seem that the whole process is tedious, capricious, and corrupt. No wonder academia is crumbling - it deserves to, and it needs to be replaced with a new, better system.
- noosphr 4mo ago[flagged]
- throwaway894345 4mo agoWhat does this mean “it’s the left that’s the problem”? The right’s solution to academic reform is literal pseudoscience. And I don’t mean this as whataboutism—I’m responding to the implication that some political faction other than the left has the right answer, and I don’t know who that would be.
- azan_ 4mo ago> Anyone pointing out the obvious - that peer review is broken and science hasn't worked in 40 years - is at best a flat Earther. Yes, if someone claims that science hasn't worked (what does it even mean?) for 40 years then he's not that far from being flat Eather. It's hard to expect other side to be reasonable while making such absurd claims.
- cannonpr 4mo agoWe must live in different worlds, I’ve been literally blown away by the advances I’ve seen and the new research coming out in the past 40 years. In some ways it feels like we are just getting started, especially in bio. We finally have the tools to discover the wonderful nano machines that make up life and people are using them in wonderful ways.
- noosphr 4mo agoIt's only between 1920 and 1960 that you would have been literally blown away by scientific progress, first as we split the atom then fused it. That you're impressed by the stamp collecting that science has become since then says a lot more about you than the state of scientific progress.
- throwaway676712 4mo agoThe commenter was talking about biology and you are talking about physics. Just because your view of one field stagnates doesn't mean the rest of science doesn't, and your quip about stamp collecting (referring to that sneering quote) means you are thinking in memes and are not a serious interlocutor
- noosphr 4mo agoUnderstanding how a bunch of baroque proteins interact is the definition of stamp collecting. As a meat bag made up of such machines I appreciate it for what it is. As a intelligence capable of abstraction I don't measure our progress in science by the number of stamps in our collection. There are no big ideas, biology included, because peer review is only there for small ideas.
- throwaway676712 3mo agoSo you think biology is just proteomics and use meme expressions like 'meat bag', got it. Not updating my prior on you being unserious
- goatlover 4mo agoScience hasn't worked since 1986? HN has some of the wildest claims / exaggerations.
- root_axis 4mo ago> the whole process is tedious, capricious, and corrupt Is there any human institution under the sun that doesn't labor under a litany of such criticisms?
- riffraff 4mo agoTo paraphrase the science/funerals quip, one might say "Society advances one failed institution at a time".
- klustregrif 4mo ago> I've had papers sit in peer review for two years, get rejected And for people who aren't in academia, lets just say the unspoken part: While one or more of the reviewers are actively trying to replicate the work so they can beat you to submission after rejecting you.
- riffraff 4mo agoWith the rise of pre-print archives is this still a problem?
- japanuspus 4mo agoYes - for the high profile journals (Science, Nature): Once it's public, you can forget everything about getting it accepted there.
- bouchard 4mo agoWhat field are you in that you'd actually wait two years, rather than retract your submission and go somewhere else?
- aiisjustanif 4mo agoNot in academia, but aware of the process, I was wondering just the same.
- oliverx0 4mo agoI have always found this article on the matter quite revealing: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-...