"About that Hart (2013) retraction..." New blog post about peer review, noisy methods, and scientific culture.https://medium.com/@richarddmorey/about-that-hart-2013-retraction-79cfdaea5cb0#.qwzasjmo5 …
is peer review broken or r we allowing charlatans/clueless ppl to perform it? 
-
-
Key part of
@richarddmorey's post attached. Revs don't like to trash year's hard work by PhD cand.pic.twitter.com/D09JFyMswI
-
I read the whole post, and I know about this rule already... the rule is bad!
-
'
@sTeamTraen@maltoesermalte@dingding_peng@richarddmorey + just to be 100% clear I'd never do study without a theory! Ever. So no problem. -
'
@sTeamTraen@maltoesermalte@dingding_peng@richarddmorey my thoughts on the gen prob since no space in one tweet http://dx.doi.org/10.15200/winn.146590.01538 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Problem is systemic: Why would we expect reviewers to perform better than their peers?
-
This implies that PR cannot do what it promises. So it is broken, like everything else ;)
-
I think important not to dilute the meaning of the word. But I see what you mean.
-
so I can't agree but I see where you're coming from. Still semantic quibble tho.
-
I think we're in agreement that PR is not a loose screw in an otherwise working system
-
yeponomics
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also: *I* get to do peer review, which should give you an idea of the problem.
-
I don't think that's the problem actually
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.