Corrupted how? If you make the materials open and use a combination of pre-registration and replications, that fixes many of the issues. My concern is that reforms should not damage the internal creative dynamic that is at the core of good science.
-
-
I haven't read any of the above recommendations yet, though! So that's something on my list and might cover what I just asked for. I'd love some history of science on the (often just emergent rather than engineered) processes so we can propose/design better ones for the future.
-
Suffice it to say from the little I know a high contrast "peer review is bad" or "peer review is good" view will be misplaced as "you'll find it's more complex than that".

-
To clarify: My point wasn’t to make such a contrast but to draw attention to the fact that editorial peer review model we practice today is not the only form of peer review that has ever existed, from a historical perspective, and may not be the best one for science.
-
And most of those recommendations cover philosophy as well as history of science to varying degrees, yes.
-
Ah, I wasn't super clear then — sorry. Because I didn't mean you. Just other discussions I have seen on this issue. I was kind of hoping to make that point here in order to make it and to preempt any of that binary thinking. Sorry.

-
Lol all good. More clarification can’t hurt anyway
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.