SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 23 2018, @11:15PM (6 children)
No! Very precise analogy, or as precise as one could be without involving automobiles. Opening up peer-review is not like disseminating knowledge, it is more like allowing those with very little knowledge, say, no knowledge of Latin, read a translation of a book they do not understand, and draw their own conclusions about what it means based on their own invincible ignorance. That is Protestantism. Not as bad, perhaps, as the Traditional Catholic position, that such things as catechism are best left to the experts, and couched in a language the common folk cannot comprehend (Catholics and Harry Potter fans agree on this), but it is almost certainly destined to emerge in Westboro Baptists and Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers. There is a reason it is PEER review, and not "average internet expert" review. Trust me on this, khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:13AM
That's the positive aspect of post-modernism in a nutshell. Not feeling the concern way over here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 24 2018, @03:55AM (4 children)
We need to use taxes to fund independent replication. Of course, using tax money for public good instead of private pork barrel good would instantly turn us into Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia simultaneously.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday May 24 2018, @06:39AM
Agreed. We need to leave this to the incredible (literally) engine of private enterprise! Who are you gonna believe, Big Pharma, or your own inevitable demise?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @08:50AM (2 children)
Because using taxes for the initial experiments worked so well in the first place that now independent replication is necessary. But how independent will said replication be when they have the same funding source?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 25 2018, @06:07PM (1 child)
You don't understand science, do you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 26 2018, @03:26AM