TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Stretching the “peer reviewed” brand until it snaps

16 点作者 padraic7a超过 10 年前

2 条评论

padraic7a超过 10 年前
It&#x27;s interesting that the elite journals are more likely to issue retractions. Though I suppose the increased prestige and job opportunities logically lead to more motive to game the system, create sockpuppets, commit other fraud etc.<p>Does the high rate of retractions show that the system works to some extent though? I wonder what percentage of fraudulent research or faked peer review is actually exposed? I guess we&#x27;ll never know - one more argument for open access and access to open research data though!
评论 #8849828 未加载
评论 #8850498 未加载
评论 #8849834 未加载
aet超过 10 年前
I think the problem is with the publishing culture in some disciplines. For an example of a field in which peer review does not appear to be problematic consider finance&#x2F;econ. In finance and econ you march you paper around to a number of different conferences. At AFA you even get a discussant that presents a critique after you present your work. After evolving the paper based on feedback from the conference circuit you eventually submit to a journal. At this point your work has been (hopefully) widely circulated in the community and is unlikely to be some piece of crap.<p>Contrast this with engineering. When you submit to a conference it has to be &quot;new&quot; work and you lose the copyright. It is a one shot deal. So, the benefit of feedback you might get on your work is basically irrelevant because that work in no longer publishable.
评论 #8853285 未加载