SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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 Wakefield's research has now been robustly discredited, and the paper was retracted by the Lancet in 2010.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, @03:06PM
I think the ideal moderation system is hypothetical, it would be done by the site owners who have a business interest, not just a professional interest, in the site. Craigslist comes close to that although they don't have a system of upmodding and downmodding - Craig Newmark personally tends to the site and culls troll posts and posters.
The best moderation system would welcome a broader spectrum of viewpoints than we typically see at /. at the level of 2 or above, especially on issues where the regs tend to congregate on one side or the other. Trolls, however, would still be banished.
Historically, small businessmen who operate retail stores on Main Street have been among the most welcoming for minorities in their communities, because they knew that customers can easily cross the street to the competition and they can't afford to write off a large chunk of their customer base. Shoplifters and other troublemakers are different - they need to be dealt with in a curt fashion. Of course, the businessman can't greet and check out all the shoppers himself, he has to delegate some of that to the help. And some of the help, even after training, aren't going to see the need to be quite so welcoming to folks that are of a different race, age, religion, sexual orientation, political party, etc.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 19 2014, @11:07PM
Have a look on the percentage already covered from funds needed by SN and think how much "business interest" is at play within SN.
Then, think that SN got their membership (especially the subscribing one) around the idea of "self-sufficient and self-regulated community that likes to discuss news interesting for people". This is the main attraction point.
Now, are you still insisting in replacing "moderation by community"? Then, read again the above until you get it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford