By corrupted I mean: Giving in to publication/funding/productivity pressures and taking shortcuts. Easier to do if there are no oversight. And I don’t think open science and preregistration is the norm yet? So that’s what I was referring to.
-
-
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.