No surprises there :/ Though I don’t think it matters to change their minds, again in the grand scheme of things. It’s enough that we change our minds. Bottom up change is slow but strong.
-
-
Replying to @zerdeve @psforscher
Yep, agree there. The wheels are definitely moving.. in some.. direction
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This is long but it made a large impression on me. Talks about peer-review as intelligence deaugmentation in terms of how it interacts with research community; when contrasted with things that improve productivity and selection among possibilities http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol3-3/Ransdell.htm …
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likes -
That sounds very interesting, thank you! I’ll read.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zerdeve @sir_deenicus and
wow this paper really is rich. gives me so much to think about! thanks again
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve @sir_deenicus and
I didn't want to break the thread but in tandem with phil of science I'd say looking at some history of science would probably help too. Seeing what they did before formalised peer review, for example, can help to see what systems we can rule in or out.https://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
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".
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @sir_deenicus and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And most of those recommendations cover philosophy as well as history of science to varying degrees, yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
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. 
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @sir_deenicus and
Lol all good. More clarification can’t hurt anyway
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.