The scientific method lies at the heart of rational evidence-based theories of the universe we inhabit. There are enormous social and commercial pressures creating endless temptations for the scientist to shortcut "the method", most of which should be caught by the peer review process.
I would like to hear best suggestions for improving the review and publication process, chiefly around the following topics: Pros and cons of professional publishers vs self publishing/public review. Should peer review reports be published? Does refusing publications deemed "bad research", bias the historical context of science on the internet? Arguments for catering to interdisciplinary research where the scientist may not be a member of the traditional "peer" group. Arguments around the public right to access knowledge vs intellectual property rights vs publishers rights issues.
Is there a better way?
One of the main problems of peer-review today is the fact that many studies that come to a negative result (studies in which the result refutes the initial hypothesis) don't get published. Negative results are also valuable data, and they are very often ignored.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals