OK so I'm a layman and I've always been told that peer review is key to knowing whether a thing is trustable. Can someone explain >
-
-
yeah I'm seeing prominent economists arguing against it as a metric, and I'm not sure how the public is meant to gauge value without it.
-
The main problem with peer review is it's heavily gatekept. A reviewer position means something, not everyone can review/edit.
-
This, of course, introduces the expected biases.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Another metric is Impact Factor. This is also imperfect but it carries a lot of weight. High impact journals have more to lose.
-
Academic capitalism is bad, but impact factor does serve its use. Another benchmark is openness. Did a study make a preprint/data available
-
And was that preprint/were those data publicly reviewable, e.g. not limited to a gated cadre of chosen reviewers? That's good if so.
-
Do the authors have legitimate reputations in their field? Amateur serendipity is very rare. Definitely things to look in to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.