The peer review system no longer works to guarantee academic rigour - a different approach is needed

Comments

• spiffmeister@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Honestly, reducing the teaching + publish-or-perish + the constant need to apply for grants would go a long way towards fixing the review process. Academics have to spend a lot of time doing a lot of non-academic work that peer reviewing properly sometimes gets pushed down the list of priorities.

  source
• bitchkat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  How about Ai?

  source

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You.are joking, right? I’m just missing that implied /s?

    source

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If my company can buy an AI powered proposal manager, someone is working on AI peer reviews. So while I was joking, i’m afraid that its coming.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  There is literally no other option than peer review for science.

  Does peer review need to work the way that it does now with publishers as gatekeepers and an expectation that work will be reviewed for free? No, the process should absolutely change but it will still require peers to review new papers.

  source

  • Vorticity@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    If you read the article, they are suggesting a different approach to peer review, not doing away with it. They want to find ways to build in incentives for reviewers to make it worth their while to review rather than allowing it to continue as something that scientists do out of a sense of obligation.

    They have an interesting approach but I think it doesn’t go far enough.

    source

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Couldn’t you have researchers who specialize in finding “bugs” in published papers, like we have QA testers or bounties for finding exploits? Is this too aggressive an approach for science? Should work for hard sciences, though.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • spankmonkey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I had a thought and didn’t make it clear, added the last sentence that I’m referring to the new system allowing for anonymous reviews. That combined with publish before review is making a new system catered to malicious business interests. Tobacco companies would just love this system.

      Now the idea of making the whole process more visible to a wider audience? Yeah, that could be a benefit.

      source
• Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Spinscore

  source
• TheMetaleek@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Maybe, just maybe, if editors did a hint of work with all the money they steal from public science funding, we could stabilise the system towards more integrity and less quantity of publication. Or also just get rid of editors to obtain the same result, but this is sadly utopic today

  source

  • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The hell aren’t colleges publishing this stuff themselves? There isn’t an academic journal published by even one single university?

    source
  • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    if editors did a hint of work with all the money

    Exactly. Why do authors need to pay for review/publication but the reviewers are volunteer and the journals paywalled? There is a fundamental mismatch between who gets vs deserves the money.

    source

    • QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Wait, reviewers are not paid?!

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Like paying them?

  source