The Scientist has an opinion piece that insufficient evidence of peer review is happening in scholarly publishing. In it, the author writes a call for publishing of anonymized peer reviews.
Scientific rigor demands that claims be substantiated by evidence. If I claim that gene A regulates gene B and provide no evidence, my claim will be dismissed. It must be dismissed. Yet, if a journal claims to conduct peer review and provides no evidence of it, the claim is rarely dismissed.
However, given the specialized nature of some disciplines and the small number of researchers, it is likely that the anonymity would not last for long. How do Soylentils weigh in on the opinion piece?
[Ed's Comment: The link is unreliable, but patience tends to get through eventually]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 23 2018, @02:09PM
The lack of attention to peer review and replication is what allows junk science to stand when it really really shouldn't. You know, the sort where p-hacking is used to reach the conclusion whoever provided the grant wants you to reach, and at the very least gets the academic in question through their current publish-or-perish phase.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.