/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14579442
>>14579442
How are the peer review preists elected to the council that determines what is doctrine and what is not? Who peer reviews the peer reviewer peer reviewer? What if a scientist is proverbially and otherwise, without peer?

>>14579442
>Was the adoption of peer review 50 years ago in part responsible for the scientific community's atrocious track record over the past half century?
It is literally the sole reason you know about the track record of science at all, as opposed to only occasionally finding out about hoaxes when there were many. Metascience is only possible by pulling on those strings to drag standards for open data and open review, something that was absolutely not possible before.
>>14579456
It is entirely possible for a journal to publish irrespective of what the reviewers say. It is also possible to publish in other journals for other reviewers. There are plenty of journals that have good prestige and following, and it is hardly some black mark to be turned down arbitrarily by Nature only to publish in Science, or national academy of sciences, etc.

There isn't a "priestly class". I've seen all manner of things published, including what I view as criminally inept to where I fucking WISH there were someone at the helm like that. What I consider good standard is quite high above common publication, and the fact people bemoan some supposed "conspiracy" against their view is simply an admission they can't even meet the subpar standards of most journals.

For the slow in the class: The failure of people claiming to know better to even meet or do the bare minimum is an admission of their own inability, of their own gross ineptitude, not evidence of a conspiracy. All you do is admit "I can't do it so I'm gonna throw a tantrum".

>>14579442
>How were scientific disagreements referee'd before the peer review era?
It was even worse the (((journals))) decided it

>>14579504
Sure, go publish in some low impact factor journal, that's gonna do wonders to raise your h-index, synonym of academic credibility.

>>14579604
Notice how I did not mention anything about trash journals? Notice how you had to go reaching for an excuse?

>>14579442
Nah, peer review isn't really an issue so much as journals holding monopolies and academics being forced to publish and living on short grant time.

The concept of having people you trust check your work isn't very weird.

>>14579611
So what prevents prestigious journals from becoming the priestly class, by becoming the standard with which to judge which journals are trash and which aren't?
Why wouldn't lesser journals want to emulate the prestigious journals' decisions of what to accept and what not, lest they are seen as trashbins for accepting "trash according to Nature"?

>>14579663
>So what prevents prestigious journals from becoming the priestly class, by becoming the standard with which to judge which journals are trash and which aren't?
A lot of things. Probably the strongest one of them is reality. If you piss off people who are doing good work, the others in their field who NEED THAT WORK are going to necessarily be on their side. "Hey I know this works, I do it, fuck I'm even teaching it now" is necessarily that ever-moving avalanche where things MUST move forward. You can't lie about reality, so as long as people can demonstrate that reality and prove that doing so is useful, they'll eventually win.
>Why wouldn't lesser journals want to emulate the prestigious journals' decisions of what to accept and what not, lest they are seen as trashbins for accepting "trash according to Nature"?
A lot of reasons, again. Lack of funding, lack of volunteering, lack of desire, different mission statements, different focus on research perhaps from different universities or countries or type of degree. Some are nonprofits as well.

But here's a major one: The basic criteria provided by Nature are fairly bog standard minimum in most places. They're nowhere near what people think they are. Beyond fulfilling the criteria, what matters is whether it's significant enough to justify the fuckton of money people spend on the subscription. If they don't, the thousands of others wanting a piece of that pie are sure fucking trying to.

>>14579663
https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors

Here, most journals have a website page for this these days.

If you think anything therein is bad, holy fuck never look at the total arbitrary bullshit involved in getting accepted for fiction publishing. Life pro tip: The secret is "don't be a white male". The criticisms are 90-100% misplaced and misdirected.

>>14579669
>A lot of things. Probably the strongest one of them is reality. If you piss off people who are doing good work, the others in their field who NEED THAT WORK are going to necessarily be on their side. "Hey I know this works, I do it, fuck I'm even teaching it now" is necessarily that ever-moving avalanche where things MUST move forward. You can't lie about reality, so as long as people can demonstrate that reality and prove that doing so is useful, they'll eventually win.
Bystander effect says otherwise. Other people don't give a shit until it matters to them personally. That's how you end up with diversity requirements pushed everywhere. Everyone simply ignores the issue even when it's in front of their nose, as long as they're not the ones being hit by it.
Even worse when a new generation is indoctrinated to consider those biases neutral.
You think corruption is something that happens blatantly, when it is something that builds up slowly but surely.

>A lot of reasons, again. Lack of funding, lack of volunteering, lack of desire, different mission statements, different focus on research perhaps from different universities or countries or type of degree. Some are nonprofits as well.
None of those explain anything, if anything they only make the matter worse.

>>14579674
>here's the written rules
>protip: the most important rule is unwritten
You now understand the problem.

>>14579689
>Bystander effect says otherwise. Other people don't give a shit until it matters to them personally. That's how you end up with diversity requirements pushed everywhere. Everyone simply ignores the issue even when it's in front of their nose, as long as they're not the ones being hit by it.
You're giving proximate concerns when I gave an answer about ultimate shifts of paradigm. Yes, people can and do get whacked, but unlike 200 years ago usually things move along fast enough that you're not dead by a century (or more) before people admit they fucked up. It does not matter about the short term, because in the long term those who use the things that work in reality will out-compete by being able to accept said reality.
>None of those explain anything, if anything they only make the matter worse.
Your claim of non-explanation doesn't explain what you think it doesn't explain. Not my problem.
>>14579694
...For fiction writing dumbass, as a contrast, where it is often EXPLICITLY written in fact.

>>14579697
>Yes, people can and do get whacked, but unlike 200 years ago usually things move along fast enough that you're not dead by a century (or more) before people admit they fucked up.
If you asked them back then, they would've also said everything is absolutely fine. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

>>14579697
>...For fiction writing dumbass, as a contrast, where it is often EXPLICITLY written in fact.
Let's wait for unwritten rules to become written like it happened to them, then.

>>14579723
>If you asked them back then, they would've also said everything is absolutely fine. Isn't hindsight wonderful?
I did not say "everything is absolutely fine". I've answered what are questions of total ignorance. I have no interest in sharing complex problems with people who refuse to contemplate what is read honestly and considerately.
>>14579730
>Let's wait for unwritten rules to become written like it happened to them, then.
Cool so how about focusing on the real problems rather than the potential slippery slope future ones? You know, like community policing. More "problems demonstrable right this second" less "scary boogeyman in future". If you actually care about those potential future problems, then your credibility ought matter a lot to you. As you won't be able to do fuck all about it with zero credibility.

Peer review killed science.

>>14579811
You are talking to a bot.

>>14580054
Retard, bot, they're genuinely indistinguishable from one another.

Can somebody explain what OP is talking about?

>>14579811
>>14579697
>>14579689
>>14579663
Here's the idea; why don't a lot of scientests (who, this is the big hard problem, are objectively good, awesome, brilliant, onto something, being unjustly snubbed) call out to one another and form their own journals?

1 it their journals can be the publishing or their works
Another of their journals can be dedicated to critiquing any publisher paper they deem inaccurate or impure in mainstream journals.

We quickly see these people too would want to be taken most seriously so would need a tremendous process of vetting any data published in their up and coming titan taking on journal.

Also is a big issue: how many scientests and researchers exist (doing interesting cutting edge work)?

How many journals (and peer reviewers) with how many openings for published papers exist?


There is likely just so much information, someone interested in Science in general cannot read it all.

But then again really how how much cutting edge research, breakthroughs, or valid criticism of past/current belief really occurs in a year?

>>14580312
Yeah, so.

Upset scientests: band together make your own journal.

And also a wondering;

How many journals (and peer reviewers) with how many openings for published papers exist?

There is likely just so much information, someone interested in Science in general cannot read it all.

But then again really how how much cutting edge research, breakthroughs, or valid criticism of past/current belief really occurs in a year?

>>14581124
>how how much cutting edge research, breakthroughs, or valid criticism of past/current belief really occurs in a year?
Someone have a rough estimate?

>>14579442
it is true there were disagreements in the past but now we don't even have to even review anything. everybody knows what is popular and what needs to be written in order to gain acceptance of one's peers. everybody is just coasting and not doing anything. the world is a much better place

https://youtu.be/5v5eBf2KwF8

Who was Robert Maxwell?
What marketplace did he corner?
What profession did he control?
Who is his daughter?
This hole runs very deep.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

>>14579831

>>14579456
>How are the peer review preists elected to the council that determines what is doctrine and what is not? Who peer reviews the peer reviewer peer reviewer? What if a scientist is proverbially and otherwise, without peer?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Very good question. Plato's Republic is a good place to start, lots of "doctors" think it's appropriate to "lie" for starters.

what's a University, do they exist in nature, or are they corporations, that is, fictitious beings? Does good science come from people cashing a corporate cheque?

What's money? Is money natural or artificial?

Etc. etc.

A good read on this is Kant's Conflict of the Faculties and then Derrida's reply in Mochlos.

Also Heidegger's Self-Assertion of the German University.

When I spent time actually trying to get familiar with the current state of the art in our field, my supervisor made fun of me and said it was more important to find new results that research other people's results. And even with this, I found over half the shit he was researching was already done 50 years ago.

No one reads each other's shit, let alone checks their results.

>>14582335
think mirror

>>14582352
this is why literature reviews are the sophisticated individual's preferred form of publishing. just kick your feet up on your desk and collate a mob of spastic tryhard researchers pointless efforts into something meaningful without ever lifting a finger to do your own experiments. no need to get your own hands dirty, requires practically no funding of your own to do, the tryhards already got the funding and spent it wisely for you.

>Whats the consensus on peer review?