Peer review is intended to safeguard the quality of the scientific record. However, it has many flaws, not the least of which are wild inconsistency (low measurement reliability) and the problem of not publishing null results, replications, and other work that needs to be part of the scientific record. Here are ten arguments to abolish peer review: http://mediatheoryjournal.org/mieke-bal-lets-abolish-the-peer-review-system/
However flawed, it still serves a purpose. As more and more papers are published every year, we already can't read our exploding literature. Here's an argument that peer review should be fixed, not abolished: https://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-in-crisis-but-should-be-fixed-not-abolished-67972
What do you think?
Peer review is essential. But we need to rethink some of the aspects of it. Have you looked at "open peer review", for example? See eLife or BMJ for an interesting new approach.
Along with all the reviews I've received on my own work over the years, I have done peer reviews for 50 different journals. Based on that, I don't see much evidence for the claim of "wild inconsistency." In particular, in most fields of social research we get copies of the other reviewers' evaluations, so it is easy to assess how similar everyone's responses were. In my experience, there is typically a high level of agreement.
As for the bias against non-significant results and replications, that problem exists at the level of the whole research field, rather than being an issue with peer review itself.
Editors of journals also review papers, so perhaps that is enough!
Peer review is very important to improve the quality of any paper due to be published. It contributes in locating weaknesses and put solutions for them before the paper is published. Therefore; peer review should never be abolished.
Well, it all depends on who is doing the peer-reviewing: see the grievance study scandal and the Sokal scandal seem to be proof about the faults in the system - at least that's how it seems to me.
To that end, the only possible way to advance the process of truth (which I'd like to assume we agree upon as the proper telos of higher education) is through careful argument, counterargument and revision (i.e. the process of institutional disconfirmation).
We just need to be more cognizant of who we select for our respect "epistemic courts."
Уважаемый Хазим Аль Дилаймы прав, рецензирование это взгляд со стороны и оно помогает находить слабые стороны и находить решения для них до публикации статьи
I agree with Viktor. I think the system is flawed (obviously), but we would be worse off without it.
Hello
I agree to have 4 people in different universities review a paper.
No two
Best regards
Ph.D. Ingrid del Valle García Carreno
I am in Rotterdam, very hard to find a project
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers