4 ms·
The problem is, is that the hypothesis is not always wrong. There are many examples in history where new hypotheses came along which go against the generally ac
by flipchart 13y ago
The problem is, is that the hypothesis is not always wrong. There are many examples in history where new hypotheses came along which go against the generally accepted dogma of the relevant field which scientists try to squash.
Think about it this way: if a hypothesis comes along which is counter to the work you've been doing for god knows how many years, are you really going to agree with it (publicly). This new idea threatens your career, so you do everything possible to get rid of it. The new system tries to keep around these new ideas so that they can be evaluated multiple times, as the people doing the evaluation change.
- theintern 13y agoI'm not sure that's true. I'm a researcher and at least among the younger generation of researchers, the anonymous peer review system often results in "oh shit" moments where you get a paper to review that you have to begrudgingly admit is good and recommend for publication, even though it makes some of your work invalid. That's just one persons experience though, I have come across proud professors (and reviewers of my own papers) who seem to let pride come before professionalism. Peer review should also be blind. Too often a famous name can get papers published that would not be published otherwise.
- flipchart 13y agoIt's awesome that you stick to the moral high road despite the consequences for your own work. I think that the problem may become more pronounced as the length of a researcher's career grows. Peer review should also be blind. Too often a famous name can get papers published that would not be published otherwise. Fully agree, although that only solves the problem of pushing through papers based on researcher merit (not the topic of rejecting papers on the basis of conflict with your own agenda)