Saved by sari
Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress
Peer review was a huge, expensive intervention. By one estimate, scientists collectively spend 15,000 years reviewing papers every year. It can take months or years for a paper to wind its way through the review system, which is a big chunk of time when people are trying to do things like cure cancer and stop climate change. And
... See moreAdam Mastroianni • The Rise and Fall of Peer Review
Nikhil Krishnan • Decentralizing Journals and Peer Review DAOs: the evolution of legitimacy in scientific publishing
sari added
Decentralizing Journals and Peer Review DAOs: the evolution of legitimacy in scientific publishing
Nikhil Krishnanoutofpocket.healthsari added
Nikhil Krishnan • Decentralizing Journals and Peer Review DAOs: the evolution of legitimacy in scientific publishing
sari added
Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don’t please reviewers get rejected. You can still write to your friends about your findings, but hiring committees and grant agencies act as if the only science that exists is the stuff published in peer-reviewed journals. This is the grand experiment we’ve been runn
... See moreAdam Mastroianni • The Rise and Fall of Peer Review
It didn’t. In all sorts of different fields, research productivity has been flat or declining for decades, and peer review doesn’t seem to have changed that trend. New ideas are failing to displace older ones. Many peer-reviewed findings don’t replicate, and most of them may be straight-up false. When you ask scientists to rate
... See moreAdam Mastroianni • The Rise and Fall of Peer Review
This suggests that a problem may be tackled effectively not my commissioning more research, but by assuming most or all of the solution can already be found in various scientific journals,... See more