Ha! Exactly! Yet we seem to swallow that pill as if it’s an unquestionable fact. Where does the dogma around the current system come from?
It is pretty funny that the system of peer review has no empirical evidence to support its use over viable alternative designs.https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1034808199126417408 …
-
-
-
People protecting their turf, methinks.
-
I’d understand for-profit publishers doing so but find it harder to understand when it comes from colleagues. Noone even enjoys doing reviews for free, or various issues of the peer review model every time you have a paper under review. But everyone seems to hope good science
-
will magically come out of the other side if we keep feeding in our unquestioning allegiance to the current system
-
No scientist would ever set up the scientific publishing system the way it is today, especially in the social sciences. It really is quite broken ... I collected a few problems here, obviously there are many more.http://eiko-fried.com/academia-in-the-upside-down-of-publishing/ …
-
yes i agree with all of this. tho i go further to specifically include the peer review system, not just the publishing model itself. on that thought i feel more alone.
-
I think the Condorcet Jury Theorem may offer some theoretical grounding for peer review, but not the way it is currently conducted.
-
Thanks, I’ll look it up and seems consistent witb my perspective (based on what you said). I think the way it’s practiced today isn’t what was originally meant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@lastpositivist does it?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.