4 ms·
Science’s Big Scandal: Even legitimate publishers are faking peer review
- username223 12y agoOne of the most interesting bits to me is that actual "researchers" were using the nonsense generator to pad their resumes[1]. The whole system is mind-blowingly corrupt. [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/32l0ym/at_mit_we_created_scigen_which_generates/cqc807i http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/32l0ym/at_mit_we_creat...
- scotty79 12y agoShouldn't reviewers sign publications with their private keys? Signature from a renown scientist would matter more than from anonymous one. Also you might verify signatures and track patterns in usage of even the anonymous keys to spot troubling patterns.
- jamessb 12y agoPeer-review is traditionally blinded, so that the identity of the reviewers is kept secret (but the identity of the authors is known to the reviewers). However, a few journals have experimented with other schemes, like open peer review or double blind peer review.