It’s a numbers game.

• X submits paper to Journal 1, and peers A,B,C reject it.
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 2, and only peers D and E reject it.
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 3, and only peer G rejects it
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 4, and no one rejects it.

Journal 4 increments prestige, Scientist X increments prestige, but nothing true or good is actually gained.

Science.

What did you think the “review” part of it meant other than reviewing it?

I recently read an interesting article proposing to get rid of the current peer review system: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The argument was roughly this: for the unfathomable (unpaid) hours spent on peer review, it’s not very effective. Too much bad research still gets published and too much good research gets rejected. Science would also not be a weak-link problem but a strong-link problem, i.e., scientific progress would not depend on the quality of our worst research but of that of our best research (which would push through anyway in time). Pretty interesting read, even though I find it difficult to imagine how we would transition to such a system.

Never,

It’s peer review not peer verified.

English is my second language so I don’t get this post, it always meant someone else read it.

Wait deadass?!?!? If so then 20 lol

I’m just happy they learned what peer review means. I doubt even a third of Americans know what it means or its impact on their lives

In my field of research, there seems to be a recent push for artifact evaluation. It’s a separate process which is also optional but you get to brag about the fact that you get badges if your experiment results were replicated.

There’s also some push back against this since it’s additional work, but I think it’s a step in the right direction.

So it’s like a crowd strike code review

Damn I guess I was today years old. I remember in high school chemistry class we were taught about peer review and had to do it for each other, except the way we did was actually testing and replicating results, so that cemented the misconception.

In my field, peer review was “obviously hasn’t read enough Foucault”.

Was lucky to contribute to a paper for the first time recently and was certainly suprised to see what peer reviews looked like lmao

Science is essentially just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

The more shit you throw, the higher chance there is that something sticks. You just need to make sure the shit is properly documented, and that’s what the peer review is for?

This is why I always shake my head and dudebros saying “Naw bro it is/is not peer reviewed, so it’s bullshit!”

Even though there are many times when the peer was wrong or outright lying to protect their pre-conceived notion or pet theory… but if you just call that the “Galileo Gambit” you don’t have to take that seriously…

I’m only a layman casual, but I have never in my life seen an actual peer review.

I’ve read/skimmed actual papers from primary sources whenever I actually care to try to understand the proof for something. No idea what a peer review looks like, no idea if the paper I read were ever peer reviewed.

I’m guessing maybe the publisher itself also/sometimes does the “we read it, looks fine”-process? Either way, I’ve never seen one. They’re like some mythical creature I’ve only ever heard descriptions of.

LGTM ⛴️