Saved by sari
Real peer review has never been tried - Works in Progress
“To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself.” A crisis involves a period of extraordinary, rather than normal, research, with a “proliferation of competing articulations, the willingness to try anything, the expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate over fundament
... See moreThomas S. Kuhn • The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition
There seems to be an open debate on whether the current system of peer-review actually weeds out papers correctly. This experiment re-submitted 12 already approved papers and 89% of the peer reviewers said the paper shouldn’t be published. More recently hundreds of sham papers managed to get through the process as scammers posed as guest editors.
Nikhil Krishnan • Decentralizing Journals and Peer Review DAOs: the evolution of legitimacy in scientific publishing
Tozier • Diverse themes observed at GECCO 2006 | Notional Slurry
Replacing the “natural,” that is age-old, processes that have survived trillions of high-dimensional stressors with something in a “peer-reviewed” journal that may not survive replication or statistical scrutiny is neither science nor good practice.
Nassim Nicholas Taleb • Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life
An “Omics” Answer to the Replication Crisis
future.com
Instead of sharing the end product of their research, users are increasingly comfortable learning in public and publish their process, including any mistakes or dead ends. The epitome of this “learning