3 ms·
I think negative reviews are hard to interpret, especially algorithmically. My favorite example is Arthur Kornbergs JBC papers on polymerase in 1957 [1] where t
by semi-extrinsic 12y ago
I think negative reviews are hard to interpret, especially algorithmically. My favorite example is Arthur Kornbergs JBC papers on polymerase in 1957 [1] where the reviewers recommended rejection with amongst others the comment “It is very doubtful that the authors are entitled to speak of the enzymatic synthesis of DNA”. Just two years later he received the Nobel prize in medicine for that work.
[1] http://m.jbc.org/content/280/49/e46.full http://m.jbc.org/content/280/49/e46.full
- eevilspock 12y agoI'm a big fan of Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But revolutions are supposed to be hard, as are changes to the Constitution, etc. But I'm thinking an open trust network can actually support revolutionary research: acceptance/rejection is not limited to the small subset of scientists that control journals. Fringe scientists can provide positive peer review to something, and add supportive research, allowing a gradual growth of support. And if this fringe that went against the grain early, and are ultimately proven right, they gain a lot of trust in the system for being early.