Editing Peer Review (section)

=== 2025 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932103957331251598
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content='''Medical Peer Review''' starts then because of the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 establishing Medicare. Scientific Peer Review comes out of [[Robert Maxwell]], Pergamon Press and ultimately the Baumann Amendment a decade later responding to “Man, a Course of Study.”
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932099333119492254
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Your reminder that *all* science before 1965 was not '''“Peer Reviewed“''' and hence is totally unreliable. Allegedly.
|timestamp=3:35 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1932099333119492254-GtAyGoEbcAAMI1H.jpg
}}
|timestamp=3:54 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932189028537053647
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=People who lie about the research of others cannot be referees. Period. And that lying is absolutely everywhere.

This is why we stagnate. 

If you put consensus scientists in charge, you always stagnate innovation. The consensus is VERY often wrong.

We had it more right before.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932184992173699397
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Q: Why do I not back down when experts tell me I'm an idiot?

A: Mobs of credentialed experts are OFTEN just *TOTALLY* wrong in their very area of exerptise. They tend to reinforce each other in their certainties.

In particular, *SCIENTISTS ARE FLAT OUT WRONG* on '''"Peer Review"''':
|timestamp=9:16 PM · Jun 9, 2025
|media1=Melinda-Baldwin-Peer-Review-Scholarly-Kitchen-GtB-mQUagAAEpyl.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932187415332164018
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So, please, lecture me on '''Peer Review''' and how it has always been here in science. Just perserverate that same thing over and over and over again. I'm here for you.

When your head is often filled with malware, at least take a moment to figure out how much you want to teach someone else "with receipts" who isn't backing down.
|timestamp=9:25 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1932187416850554940
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content='''Peer Review''' is a *RECENT*, unwanted, disastorous, administrative rewriting of research science culture. If you want to know what kills progress, it's this.

Source of image: Interview with Melinda Baldwin at the "Scholarly Kitchen".

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/09/26/the-rise-of-peer-review-melinda-baldwin-on-the-history-of-refereeing-at-scientific-journals-and-funding-bodies/
|timestamp=9:25 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:32 PM · Jun 9, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1938248787425956219
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=That’s where the state of play is as of June 2025 in STEM. It’s not close to humans of 70 years ago (before '''modern peer review''') as of these iterations.

Maybe it’s a bit closer to simulating today’s humans in the Claudine Gay/'''Peer Review''' academic era. 

We are converging down as it moves up. And we may soon meet in the middle it seems.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1938248787425956219-GuYLABXaAAAfTgi.jpg
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1938248774637523301
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content='''LLM Peer Review''':

Gemini was asked to write a journal submission on a STEM topic I know a bit about.

ChatGPT was asked to Peer Review that article for publication and make suggestions. 

I recommend every STEM academic try this adversarial excercise in an area he/she knows well.
|timestamp=2:51 PM · Jun 26, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1938248774637523301-GuYK_R3bEAMdFX5.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1938248781121892706
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=ChatGPT had all kinds of issues with it and complained while rewriting it to improve it.

Gemini was given the reviewer report and it more or less freaked out: “How is this reviewer even competent to make these claims?“ and pointed out how lousy the reviewer report was. In fact CharGPT as reviewer had, in fact, misrepresented Gemini’s work as well as engaged in making claims to have improved the work…which were false.

Gemini was basically far more correct. ChatGPT suggestions made Gemini worse. It may be that ChatGPT’s output tokens are far fewer so it gutted Gemini’s work.

Thus I wanted to see if Gemini was the clear winner.

So I then asked Gemini for specific references to back up its claims in a comprehensive literature search. And it promptly totally fabricated convincing quotes, page numbers, article titles and mathematical equations.
|timestamp=2:51 PM · Jun 26, 2025
|media1=ERW-X-post-1938248781121892706-GuYK_nxa4AAq5TW.jpg
}}
|timestamp=2:51 PM · Jun 26, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941379571607273722
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*</nowiki>electron. My bad. 

Q: How do we get relocate these people at scale? How do they enter theoretical physics? It’s so bizarre.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941374102197109183
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Quality Control: the scourge of Great Science. 

You cannot quality control your nation to great theoretical physics. Can’t be done.

It’s about what has never been done. I could wipe out all of past theoretical physics with '''peer review''' &amp; quality control.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcSIAJdOZ-Q
|timestamp=5:50 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941374104633999571
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“Mr Feynman: what is the measure on that integral?” 

“But then your eigenfunctions aren’t in your Hilbert space.”

“Wait: why are we adding ad hoc positivity conditions again?”

“So nature just gives us this magic sector Mr Higgs because it would solve all your problems? Have you considered going into screenwriting?”

“But Dr Einstein, your equations must be wrong because they lead to singularities that can’t be removed.”

“Dr Gell-Mann: you are just randomly applying SU(3) to totally different things. Like a man with a hammer thinking everything is a nail.”

“But Paul, then the election and the proton would have the same mass. Rejected for publication I’m afraid.”

“But Dr Aharonov: surely someone would have noticed this. I’m sorry. You can’t give a talk on magical E&M.”
|timestamp=5:50 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:12 AM · Jul 5, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522806547829032
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We need to talk about what debunking was before it became “Covert influence operations”, “Image Cheapening”‘and personal destruction warfare. 

So let’s talk.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522171886739479
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I would like to talk to @MickWest and @michaelshermer and @francis_collins and  @neiltyson and @seanmcarroll and @nytimes about the role of debunking and discrediting professionals who do not buy into narratives that are later found to be cover stories about national interest.
|timestamp=3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1941522174428565613
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We have a COVID=Wet Market narrative.</br>
We have an Inflation and [[CPI]] narrative.</br>
We have a [[Quantum Gravity]] narrative.</br>
We have a Vaccine Narrative.</br>
We have [[Labor Shortages|“Americans suck at STEM”]].</br>
We have a “Settled Science” narrative.</br>
We have a [[Peer Review|“Peer Review”]] narrative.</br>
We had a [[Great Moderation|“Great Moderation]]” narrative.</br>
We have “Independent Journalism”.</br>
We have a [[Jeffrey Epstein|“Disgraced Financier”]] story.</br>
We have an [[UAP|“Aerospace and UFO”]] opera.

It’s all one thing that cannot be named: 

National Interest [[Managed Reality TM|“Managed Reality.”]]
|timestamp=3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:41 PM · Jul 5, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1952882797313704120
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=LONG: Science  + AI +  Traditional Academe</br>
———————————————————-</br>
SHORT:  '''Peer Review'''   +    Modern Academe

That’s the trade, in my opinion.
|timestamp=12:01 AM · Aug 6, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1971297888375554464
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content='''Peer Review''' is a recent unwanted development in Science.

The lie is that it is bedrock science and dates back to the founding of the Royal Society. I’ve covered this extensively.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1971290031496233205
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Our institutions are often lying about science. And *they* are the ones saying “We cannot allow public questioning of our institutions of science by PhDs.”

And if you don’t believe me, start with the lie about '''Peer Review''' and Journals.

We are literally lying about Peer Review:
|media1=ERW-X-post-1971290031496233205-G1tt1hvagAA25SA.jpg
|timestamp=7:05 PM · Sep 25, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Grond21-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Grond21/status/1971290971951579259
|name=James
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Grond21
|username=Grond21
|content=How are they lying about peer review? I am sorry, I don't understand
|timestamp=7:05 PM · Sep 25, 2025
}}
|timestamp=7:05 PM · Sep 25, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1971633993000145312
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Ask yourself the following.

Q1: Would you rather have the science and scientists from before the advent of '''Peer Review''' during 1965-75, or after?

Q2: Do you trust scientists more or less if they claim that '''Peer Review''' is essential, and dates to the founding of the Royal Society?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=t_a_stephens-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/t_a_stephens/status/1971333657651749151
|name=Thomas Stephens
|usernameurl=https://x.com/t_a_stephens
|username=t_a_stephens
|content=@EricRWeinstein It’s amazing that '''peer review''' is such a recent development. Prior to reading your comments on it, I had just assumed it was a longstanding tradition in the sciences.

Science obviously worked fine before peer review, and it may just drive groupthink more than anything else.
|timestamp=9:59 PM · Sep 25, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:15 PM · Sep 26, 2025
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1971639845278961819
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Editors who are distinguished fiercely independent researchers themselves, with huevos of steel, integrity, a cuture of collegiality, autonomy, money, and a variety of strong differing opinions.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=ha1331-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/ha1331/status/1971633993000145312
|name=Henrik
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ha1331
|username=ha1331
|content=@EricRWeinstein What sould replace peer review or would improve on the current system?
|timestamp=5:52 PM · Sep 26, 2025
}}
|timestamp=6:15 PM · Sep 26, 2025
}}