“what has come to be called “peer review” is not peer review proper but rather a crippled form of it which is not only of limited value at best as a critical control principle but is also a subversion of the peer principle that underlies the practice of authentic peer review.”https://twitter.com/sir_deenicus/status/1039016595853664256 …
That's weird — did they give you wider context? Like "we need you to give us a perspective on X and Y because we are covered on A and B and C"?
-
-
I think they genuinely had no idea what to do with it. I gave the editor a plain-text summary of what the paper was attempting so they could at least judge its appropriateness, reviewed the bits within my domain, and recommended finding an econometrics expert for the rest.
-
And the editor was right - I think if your methods mention machine learning it's a good thing to dig out someone in that field rather than assuming it's all fine. But it demonstrates how broad the peer review network now has to be cast to get comprehensive feedback.
- 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.