Peer Review: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
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]]. | Peer review is a relatively [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-birth-of-modern-peer-review/ 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]]. | ||
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]]. | 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 == | |||
* [https://academic.oup.com/bjps/article/doi/10.1093/bjps/axz029/5526887 Is Peer Review a Good Idea? by Remco Heesen, Liam Kofi Bright] | |||
| Line 9: | Line 13: | ||
<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> | ||
<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://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins Vladimir Voevodsky] | |||
</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." — [https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1009417068926722048 Nassim Nicholas Taleb] | |||
</blockquote> | |||
== Resources & References == | == Resources & References == | ||
* [https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824 Relevant tweet] by Eric that exemplifies how peer review fails. | * [https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824 Relevant tweet] by Eric that exemplifies how peer review fails. | ||
[[Category:Slip the DISC]] | |||
[[Category:DISC]] | |||
Revision as of 19:42, 3 December 2020
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.Peer review is a relatively new form of gate-keeping used by the 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 The Portal Episode 19.
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
Quotes
"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
"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." — David Chapman
"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." — Vladimir Voevodsky
"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." — Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Resources & References
- Relevant tweet by Eric that exemplifies how peer review fails.