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 >
-
-
Replying to @KillerMartinis
what the metric is for the general public to trust a study if peer review isn't it?
12 replies 3 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @KillerMartinis
I think
@emilygorcenski might be a good person to ask.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @lehudgins @KillerMartinis
Thanks! I've actually spoken on this recently. Peer review is flawed, perhaps deeply, but there is value to it.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @lehudgins
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KillerMartinis @lehudgins
The main problem with peer review is it's heavily gatekept. A reviewer position means something, not everyone can review/edit.
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes
This, of course, introduces the expected biases.
10:33 AM - 28 Jun 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
8 likes
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.