Is peer review a good idea - paper

  • Assumes a primary motivation for scientists is credit
  • Sharing
  • Time allocation
    • Advantages of not press ganging scientists into reviewing
  • Gender skew
    • Women hold their work to higher standard because they perceive gender bias regardless of whether it exists
  • Library resources
    • Cost of publishing and distributing an article = 4000lbs
    • Journals become collections of existing articles
    • arXive maintainence cost = $10
  • Scientific careers
    • Metrics would shift towards citations rather than impact factors of journals ::Isn’t this the same as online articles?::
  • Gatekeepers
    • Gatekeepers would have less power
  • Epistemic sorting from peer review wouldn’t be a loss to science
  • Abolishing peer review wouldn’t change level of malpractice detection
  • Scientists will still do things that they expect other scientists to think is impressive
  • Abolishing peer review won’t shift who gets or does not get one run credit
  • Peer review provides a quality guarantee to outsiders
    • Peer review definitely lets through shit
  • Concerns about runaway rich get richer effect due to citation cascades
    • Especially bad because funding is based on citations
    • ::This may be the biggest piece::





Web URL for this note

Comment on this note