| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Peer review is a relatively [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/ new form] of gatekeeping used by the [[Distributed Idea Suppression Complex|DISC]] to suppress ideas. It functions to keep out bad ideas and amplify good ideas. Like any human process, it fails in its function at times. It sometimes amplifies bad ideas such as those exposed by the Grievance Studies Hoax. It sometimes suppresses important ideas such as those discussed in [[19: Bret Weinstein - The Prediction and the DISC|The Portal Episode 19]].
| | {{stub}} |
| Β | |
| Criticisms of the peer-review crisis include the ad hominem nature of the review, the appeal to authority, the selection bias, the confirmation bias and the replication crisis.
| |
|
| |
|
| == Relevant Essays and Papers ==
| | Peer review is a relatively new form of [[gate-keeping]] used by the [[Distributed Idea Suppression Complex|DISC]] to suppress ideas. It functions to keep out bad ideas and amplify good ideas. Like any human process, it fails in its function at times. It sometimes amplifies bad ideas such as those exposed by the [[Grievance Studies Hoax]]. It sometimes suppresses important ideas such as those discussed in [[19: Bret Weinstein - The Prediction and the DISC|The Portal Episode 19]]. |
| * [https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/doi/10.1093/bjps/axz029/5526887 Is Peer Review a Good Idea? by Remco Heesen, Liam Kofi Bright]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Quotes ==
| | Criticisms of the peer-review crisis include the [[ad hominem]] nature of the review, the [[appeal to authority]], the [[selection bias]], the [[confirmation bias]] and the [[replication crisis]]. |
|
| |
|
| <blockquote>
| |
| "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editorsβ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."Β β Julian Schwinger
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
|
| <blockquote>
| |
| "Also, funding by peer review results in group-think and whole scientific fields floating off in a self-perpetuating irreality bubble for decades. Randomness will fund mavericks, mostly crackpots, but some may blow up established dysfunctional disciplines."Β β [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 David Chapman]
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
|
| <blockquote> | | <blockquote> |
| "A technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard
| | The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editorsβ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.Β β Julian Schwinger |
| to check and looks similar to arguments known to be
| |
| correct, is hardly ever checked in detail." Β β [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins Vladimir Voevodsky]
| |
| </blockquote> | | </blockquote> |
|
| |
| <blockquote>
| |
| "Research by salaried laborers is becoming a rent-seeking citation ring consisting of large scale imitative rituals, with a decreasing number of results, an increasing cluelessness of participants, and a multiplication of useless rules."Β β [https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1009417068926722048 Nassim Nicholas Taleb]
| |
| </blockquote>
| |
|
| |
| == Resources & References ==
| |
| * [https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824 Relevant tweet] by Eric that exemplifies how peer review fails.
| |
| {{#widget:Tweet|id=1230888559411789824}}
| |
|
| |
| ==See Also==
| |
|
| |
| * [[Thug-Review]]
| |
|
| |
| {{stub}}
| |
|
| |
| [[Category:Concepts]]
| |
| [[Category:Slip the DISC]]
| |
| [[Category:DISC]]
| |
