[HN Gopher] Real peer review has never been tried
___________________________________________________________________
Real peer review has never been tried
Author : bilsbie
Score : 62 points
Date : 2022-07-21 16:58 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.worksinprogress.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.worksinprogress.co)
| Blahah wrote:
| This article seems like it would be very interesting to me but
| after dismissing three intrusive popups in my mobile browser I
| stopped trying to read it.
|
| Does anyone know of a mobile browser friendly way to read this
| kind of site without being constantly bombarded? It's exhausting.
| It seems like the sort of problem that would have been solved,
| but my attempts to discover the solution have failed.
| tommy5dollar wrote:
| There's just a cookie prompt and then a newsletter sign-up a
| little later? I don't think there's any constant bombardment,
| if there is for you I'm interested to know more.
| Blahah wrote:
| I dismissed 3 overlays.
|
| 1. cookies 2. email newsletter 3. cookies again
|
| The constant bombardment was more in reference to the state
| of the web generally. Popups and overlays that aren't a
| result of an interaction I've chosen to make are exhausting
| for me (and people with ADHD generally, and many others). I
| don't go back to sites that have them, but would be happy to
| read (and often pay for) the content if that wasn't the
| context.
| SCNP wrote:
| The 'Kill Sticky' plugin for Firefox works pretty well for me
| for most stuff. Most popups darken the screen, though, and it
| doesn't handle that. It's very useful to me nonetheless. If you
| don't use Firefox, you can go their site and copy/paste it to
| your bookmarks.
| roninghost wrote:
| On android: fennec(firefox fork) + uBlockOrogin, NoScript,
| PrivacyBadger and Decentraleyes.
|
| I only had de reject all cookies prompt.
|
| With firefox you can aldo use the reade mode, that extracts the
| main taxt and displays it plainly.
| Barrera wrote:
| I was expecting the author to define "real peer review," but
| didn't see that. The best approximation is probably gleaned from
| the conclusion:
|
| - integration of preprint servers and alt metrics
|
| - tweaking incentives to review
|
| - making comments on papers public
|
| - use of software to detect fraud
|
| - directing resources specifically to improving peer review
|
| The bigger problem is that the author doesn't seem to actually
| zero in on the problem peer review is supposed to solve today.
| The author notes that peer review really got going in the 1970s
| as a way to filter content flowing to overwhelmed editors. But
| the emergence of the internet largely nullifies that problem.
| Wide distribution of scientific information no longer requires
| scientific publishers.
|
| The real problem is the ways in which science funding, journals,
| and peer review have become intertwined, with publishers playing
| the role of bankers in this economy. This problem is cultural,
| not technical. It's a historical relic and it increasingly does
| not serve science well.
|
| So, what is the actual problem that journal-supervised peer
| review is supposed to solve in the age of the internet?
| Pulcinella wrote:
| I would not even say those things would count as "real peer
| review." Peer review is supposed to involve replication.
| Unfortunately that almost never happens these days.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >Wide distribution of scientific information no longer requires
| scientific publishers.
|
| Wide and voluminous distribution of bad information requires
| filters to extract the good, peer review has some form of
| filtering functionality, although I wouldn't say it is great I
| think it would probably be better than the filter that a
| Facebook or Twitter of Science would provide (or just Facebook
| or Twitter if you don't like the 'of science' locution)
| pessimizer wrote:
| > It's a historical relic and it increasingly does not serve
| science well.
|
| It's also pretty devastating evidence that the world is not
| going to improve in any sort of an organized way if the experts
| that we would expect to lead the effort for a rational world
| can't clean their own house. It's hard to trust academic
| systems to design ways to improve society when the academic
| system is built around an irrational base in journals.
|
| An academic system that exhibits the same shitty array of
| characteristics as every other corrupt status quo institution
| doesn't give me a lot of hope for everything else.
| moffkalast wrote:
| I don't think anyone expects academics to fix anything,
| that's what we have politicians for, hah!
| lacker wrote:
| Nowadays, journals and peer review solve the problem of, people
| need to make hiring decisions and funding decisions. But these
| decisionmakers don't have enough technical expertise or time to
| evaluate all the papers from all the applicants.
|
| The decisionmakers do have enough time to learn which are the
| most prestigious journals in the field. So, they can pick the
| people with the most papers submitted to prestigious journals,
| or at least use that to filter applicants down to a short list
| for closer examination.
| lacker wrote:
| The problem is that looking at journal quality is the best quick
| way to evaluate how good a paper is, when you aren't an expert on
| the topic. And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made
| by people who aren't experts.
|
| Nowadays a journal provides essentially no distribution, but
| there's no good alternative to journals as a "stamp of quality".
| elashri wrote:
| > And a lot of employment and funding decisions are made by
| people who aren't experts.
|
| This should be considered a flaw (bug in tech terms) not a
| feature. why would you take decisions about funding something
| or not if you are not an expert. At least you are not expert in
| the same field but have knowledge and it is easier for you to
| communicate and discuss the proposals. But getting someone who
| never did a real scientific research and the last time he wrote
| a scientific essay was when he was in college to determine
| which research should be funded is wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-21 23:01 UTC)