Popular Post eight bits Posted January 28 Popular Post #1 Share Posted January 28 I've posted this essay (a long read, but currently more-or-less viral in some sectors of scholarship) in Phil & Psy, because its author is a psychologist: https://www.adammastroianni.com/ . Although many of the examples are from "hard" science and the history of science, most of the problems discussed in the essay are the same as those found in many disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences. Here on the wild, wild web many of the skeptical persuasion come across as having a faith-based confidence in the importance of peer-review. I've occasionally posted in reply that what peer review mainly certifies is that a paper (book, etc.) satisfies the publisher's editorial standards (which vary widely) and that the editor has some assurance that the paper will be of some interest to the target readership. There is little or no warranty that the work is reliable in any strong sense. The essay criticizes peer review far more deeply than that, even going so far as hinting that the peer review "stamp of approval" may be outrightly deceptive regarding the merits of a work. Ouch. Without further ado, here's the essay: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review (WARNING: It's not peer-reviewed .) 8 3 Top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now