Even if we assume that peer review is a very good system, it has an error rate. Given the sheer volume of published papers, there should be thousands of corrections/retractions a year There aren't
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Really, it's the peer review that needs peer review
-
Who will peer review the peer reviewers?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
-
I can't quite explain how I find myself reading Ioannidis' paper, but I see your paper in the references!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
we in finance have .... "balance sheet is audited" ;)
-
The auditing is highly selective of course. If you are the Pentagon, you get away with errors of +/- $30Trillion
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it [peer review] is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused" -
@Richard56https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ … -
I wish they told us how they really felt ... Also, amen.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Many of the most prestigious venues in computer science have double-blind review. See here for an example of the process in action: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ucEXZQncukK … There are tradeoffs and the system is imperfect but on the whole I find it very refreshing coming from biomedicine.
- Show replies
-
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.