Comment on Bots are better than humans at cracking ‘Are you a robot?’ Captcha tests, study finds
Zeth0s@lemmy.world 1 year agoYou are overrating peer review. It’s basically a tool to help editors to understand if a paper “sells”, to improve readability and to discard clear garbage.
It almost never impact quality of the results, as reviewers do not redo the work. From the “trustworthy” point of view, peer reviewing is comparable to a biased rng. Google for actual reproducibility of published experiments and peer review biases for more details
brsrklf@compuverse.uk 1 year ago
Peer reviewing is how you know the methodology is not flawed…
Zeth0s@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Unfortunately not. www.nature.com/articles/533452a
Most peer reviewed papers are non reproducible. Peer review has the primary purpose of telling the editor how sellable is a paper in a small community he only superficially knows, and to make it more attractive to that community by suggesting rephrasing of paragraphs, additional references, additional supporting experiment to clarify unclear point.
But it doesn’t guarantees methodology is not flawed. Editor chooses reviewer very superficially, and reviews are mainly driven by biases, and reviewers cannot judge the quality of a research because they do not reproduce it
C4d@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes. A senior colleague sometimes tongue-in-cheek referred to it as Pee Review.
Zeth0s@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The downvotes to my comments shows that no many people here has ever done research or knows the editorial system of scientific journals :D