One of my profs once remarked, "All of science is done on a volunteer basis." He was talking about peer review, which--as crucial as it is--is not something you get paid for.<p>Writing a review--a good review--is 1) hard work, 2) can only be done by somebody who has spent years in postgraduate study, and 3) takes up a lot of time, which has many other demands on it.<p>The solution? Its obvious. In a free market, how do you signal if you want more of something to be produced? Bueller? Bueller?<p>Yeah, that's right, you gotta pay for it. This cost should just be estimated and factored into the original grant proposals--if its not worth $5k or $10k to fund a round of peer review, and perhaps also funds to run confirming experiments--well, then its probably not research worth doing in the first place.<p>So yeah, write up the grants to include the actual full cost of doing and publishing the research. It would be a great way for starving grad students to earn some coin, and the experience gained in running confirming experiments would be invaluable to help them get that R.A. position or postdoc.
PREPUBLICATION REVIEW IS BAD! STOP TRYING TO REINTRODUCE IT.<p>Sorry for the all caps. Publishing papers without “peer review” isn’t some radical new concept—it’s how all scientific fields operated prior to ca. 1970. That’s about when the pace of article writing outstripped available pages in journals and this system of pre-publication review was adopted and formalized. For the first 300 years of science you published papers by sending it off as a letter to the editor (sometimes via a sponsor if you were new to the journal), and they either accepted or rejected it as-is.<p>The idea of having your intellectual competitors review your work and potentially sabotage your publication prospects as a standard process is a relatively recent addition. And one that has not been shown to actually be effective.<p>The rise of Arxiv is a recognition by researchers that we don’t need or want that system, and we should do away with it entirely in this era of digital print where page counts don’t matter. So please stop trying to force it back on us!
Because I don't want to spend two years fighting the second referee when she's fundamentally misunderstood the point of my paper.<p>I'm no longer in academia. Either take what I put up on arxiv or leave it. I _really_ don't care.
The review process is broken.<p>Reviewing pre print papers isnt any more effective than reviewing printed papers. Review, and publication is a meaningless bar.<p>Publish -> people find insight and try to pick it apart -> You either have flaws or you get reproduced... Only then should your paper be of any worth to be quoted or sighted from.<p>The current system is glad-handing, intellectual protectionism and mastrubation.<p>Academia has only itself to blame for this, and they are apparently unwilling to fix it.
Even if academics could review all the papers on a preprint server (which the article argues -- rightly -- that they can't), it wouldn't solve the perceived problems (or the actual problems) with scientific peer review.<p>The vast majority of irreproducible papers aren't detectible as irreproducible at time of publication. They look fine, and many actually <i>are fine</i>. They just don't reproduce. That's an expected outcome in science. The system will self-correct over time.<p>IMO, the main <i>actual problem</i> with peer review is that non-practitioners put too much faith in it. Nobody in science actually takes a paper on faith because it's been published, and you shouldn't either. Peer review is little more than a lightweight safeguard against complete nonsense being published. It barely works for that. Just because you found a paper doesn't mean you should believe it. You have to understand it.<p>A secondary actual problem is that it's <i>impossible</i> to reproduce a lot of papers, or they're methodologically broken from the start (e.g. RCTs that are not pre-registered, or observational studies without control groups). These are problems we could actually solve. For example, just requiring that any paper publish the raw study data would help to self-control the system. There are high-profile researchers out there, right now, who do little more than statistically mine the same secret data set -- these people are likely publishing crap, but we have no way to prove it, because the data is secret.
The solution to the dated model exists, it's git/github. I'm trying to build a "git journal" (essentially a github org where projects/research gets published paired with a substack newsletter), details here [0]<p>Let me know if you have a project you'd like to get on there! Here's what it looks like, a paper on directed evolution [1]<p>[0] <a href="https://versioned.science/" rel="nofollow">https://versioned.science/</a>
[1] <a href="https://github.com/versioned-science/DNA_polymerase_directed_evolution">https://github.com/versioned-science/DNA_polymerase_directed...</a>
A fun system would be: you 'have to' peer review publicly a (part of a) paper (at least) when you cite it in your paper.<p>So that often cited paper get a lot of different (small) public reviews that can be curated from time to time, obscure papers get at least one review justifying why it's relevant to cite them in the new work.<p>Some could argue that this is too much work added to the writing process.. But.. At the same time.. Shouldn't we read the papers we cite? Why not automatically write a small review of it? It has not to be huge, only the justification on why we (can) use it in our work.
Peer review is pretty unpopular round these parts. In mathematics/TCS I've had mostly good experiences. Actually most of the time the review process improved my papers.<p>Clearly something is rotten about the way peer review is implemented in the empirical sciences. But think of all those high profile retractions you read about these days. Usually that comes about by a sort of post hoc peer review, not by anything resembling market forces.
Up until the 1940's, "publish or perish" wasn't the obsession, publishing what was thoroughly vetted but not before it was ready. The sheer volume of substandard, barely novel papers allowed and the artificial expectations to produce a blizzard of publications foisted on researchers are the central problems.
They should just open a comment field on arXiv.<p>Then I can anonymously critique the paper without fear of the authors rejecting my career making Nature paper.
Here's a recent effort at peer reviewing pre-prints that started in 2017 <a href="https://prereview.org/" rel="nofollow">https://prereview.org/</a>
I just wanted to share this just incase anyone is in a situation where they don’t trust their partners anymore. There is no harm in wanting to know what your second half is into, it saves you from wasting more years of your life with people who do not deserve you. I will leave the hacker’s contacts below just incase anyone needs his services and assistance.
Just a mail to hackerspytech @ gmail com
Encouraged by these review, I contacted the expert hackerspytech @ gmail com based off many reviews i got from here and he gave me applications and login details to access my partner’s phone, it was like a dream come true because i never expected his service to be so top notch with every details i needed. This allowed me to view text messages, calls, WhatsApp conversations, and her location . With the evidence I gathered, I was able to make necessary changes in my life. If you need to access your partner phone for spying purpose, I highly recommend this expert.
it’s 100% possible to hack someone WhatsApp using a phone number with the support of a professional ethics expert