Phys.org is running a story on some of the issues with modern peer review:
Once published, the quality of any particular piece of research is often measured by citations, that is, the number of times that a paper is formally mentioned in a later piece of published research. In theory, this aims to highlight how important, useful or interesting a previous piece of work is. More citations are usually better for the author, although that is not always the case.
Take, for instance, Andrew Wakefield's controversial paper on the association between the MMR jab and autism, published in leading medical journal The Lancet. This paper has received nearly two thousand citations – most authors would be thrilled to receive a hundred. However, the quality of Wakefield's research is not at all reflected by this large number. Many of these citations are a product of the storm of controversy surrounding the work, and are contained within papers which are critical of the methods used. Wakefield's research has now been robustly discredited, and the paper was retracted by the Lancet in 2010. Nevertheless, this extreme case highlights serious problems with judging a paper or an academic by number of citations.
Personally, I've been of the opinion that peer review is all but worthless for quite a while. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has issues with the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:23AM
So let me get this straight: SN moderation involves a small number of anointed moderators reviewing the comments of their peers, but somehow it's not peer review?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @04:43AM
Indeed is not. The same way even if a both a duck and a penguin have feathers, they aren't the same. Surprised?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by richtopia on Wednesday November 19 2014, @05:36AM
Well, are we talking Python or C++? Because I think Python really does not care about the duck/penguin... they both have feathers after all.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @06:05AM
They are different from inheritance which was what the GGP used when asking: "you say that moderation isn't peer review even if it uses peers and techniques of review?" (note the is-a relationship as the subject of her/his question).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @10:39AM
You may not know how peer review works. Here's the main differences between peer review and SN moderation: