170
edits
Peer Review: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science. — Julian Schwinger | "The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science." — Julian Schwinger | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
<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. — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 David Chapman] | "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." — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 David Chapman] | ||
</blockquote> | |||
<blockquote> | |||
"A technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard | |||
to check and looks similar to arguments known to be | |||
correct, is hardly ever checked in detail." — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins Vladimir Voevodsky]] | |||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||