/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15574170
Decline in scientific output is directly caused by peer review gatekeeping emerging in the 60s.

>>15574170
It's good for publishers

>>15574181
How is that good for publishers? Peer review is done by volunteers
>>15574170
It's good because it filters most bullshit agenda studies at the publishing stage. If your immediate reaction is to write some nonsense babble about trannies and jews then I suggest you peer review your brain with a shotgun.

>>15574193
>How is that good for publishers?
It forces people to engage with publishers to receive recognition, since they have a monopoly on peer review.

>>15574170
it's bad for the sophon because it makes its job harder.

>>15574193
>Peer review is done by volunteers
imagine that you have such little self respect that you consider unpaid jannies to be your peers

>>15574170
It's like democracy, Worst Form of Government Except for All the Others.

>>15574818
But science worked perfectly for hundreds of years before peer review was even considered.

>>15574818
>Worst Form of Government Except for All the Others
quote that meme all you want, doesn't make it true.
>guy who could not get into power under any other system of government other than democracy says democracy is the best form of government
objective source
ask a hereditary monarch and he will tell you that hereditary monarchy is the best form of government

>>15574170
your moms snatch stood up to a lot of peer review last if you know what is being told to you

>>15574170
It was reasonable to think it would be a good system that would improve science but it hasn't worked out that way. Even though more and more people, even those inside the system, admit that it is broken and often counterproductive, it has become too entrenched for anyone to remove or even reform it.

>>15574829
The Scientific Revolution was literally triggered by the replication crisis of Aristotelian science.

>>15574170
consensus and seniority are the mechanisms used by priests to ensure consistency in the church theology

>>15575540
the royal society said nullius in verba, while peer review is nothing but words

>>15575574
great going, that

>>15574170
I appreciate you typing an IQ # next to each person in the image, OP. Otherwise, it would have made no sense.

>>15574170
heh, pee review system

>>15574193
Science existed and advanced prior to peer review. Why are we experiencing a replication crisis? Peer review is letting plenty of bad papers get through based on the politics of the volunteers.

>>15575574
Peer review is not consensus. Reviewers for publication are not supposed to judge whether or not they agree with the paper, but only whether or not the methodology etc are valid.

The other half of peer review in a broader sense, that >>15574829 seems to be ignorant of, is that other scientists will try to replicate your results. It's only after that that your results can really be considered truly valid.

And yes, there are pseudoscience sociology journals where they'll publish any bullshit, and microscopic subfields where the one top expert will quash any papers he doesn't like because he's a dick. But those are obvious misapplications and abuses of the concept of peer review.

>>15575949
As I pointed out, replication is a form of peer review. If your results cannot be replicated (or tested in the first place if you're a theoretician), no one will take them seriously. Science could not have existed before replicable tests for hypotheses, because they are literally what science is. Scientists have always been reading, criticizing, and testing each others results.

You seem to be conflating one specific form of peer review, the way journals do it right now, with the concept in general that is fundamental to science.

>>15575696
Priests are less likely to be pedos than the average man. They are far less likely to rape a child than a public school teacher. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Fuck off back to ratheism.

>>15576008
>Peer review is not consensus.
yes it is, the reviewers are not unbiased and lacking emotions, if they see something they dislike they will make up an excuse to SHUT IT DOWN

>>15576008
>replication is a form of peer review
You don't know what peer review is.

>>15576139
>if they see something they dislike they will make up an excuse to SHUT IT DOWN
Oh no, if only you could, I don't know, make a demonstration of some sort... Like, a test to show that your hypothesis isn't crap

Peer Review is the least of modern academia's problems.

>>15576320
Peer review reinforces all of academia's other problems.

>>15576261
You don't know what peer review is.

>>15574170
Eric weinstein is annoying and full of air but it makes sense that the pre-publishing part of peer review inhibits peer review. If something truly groundbreaking and disruptive comes along, it will probably fail pre-publishing because they wouldn't believe it and they don't want the reputation of the journal tarnished by fringe claims. If they do believe you, they can try to steal your idea before a larger body of scientists see it so you might be tempted to publish the idea outside the journal, but then you'll be branded as fringe without the reputation of the journal and other scientists may never spend the resources to test your claims.

This whole nonsense of prestigious journals that only likely-correct ideas are published in needs to stop. It defeats the purpose.

>>15574170

>>15574193
>It's good because it filters most bullshit agenda studies at the publishing stage.

You realize people with agendas will just make taking over the journal part of their agenda right?

>>15576008
>Reviewers for publication are not supposed to judge whether or not they agree with the paper, but only whether or not the methodology etc are valid.

nigger if your claim is cuhhrrrrrazy, they can safely assume confounding experimental error or you are lying, even if your methodology is correct, and they will be right in judging it as bullshit most of the time. So it makes no sense for them to publish you and make the journal a laughing stock so they can maybe catch that one cuuuhrazy claim that turned out to be right.

>>15576555
You unironically proved why peer review hurts science. Experimentation must stand on its own and be seen on its own. If the methodology is valid then the results, no matter how insane they seem, are valid within that framework and should be seen and debated.

>>15576559
that was the point. I was pointing out why methodology isn't and can't be the only thing they are concerned about because politics.

>>15576510
lol

>>15576510
brownpilled af

>>15574170
What was the system they were using when airplanes, antibiotics, automobiles & alternating current power electrical power were invented?

>>15577436
Open defense of publications in front of an audience, sort of like how we still do a dissertation defense but in front of 50-100 people.

>>15574170
Peer review process, was never scientifically verified to be of benefit.
Which is a kekistrophic paradox.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

"we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused."

"There are several ways to abuse the process of peer review. You can steal ideas and present them as your own, or produce an unjustly harsh review to block or at least slow down the publication of the ideas of a competitor. These have all happened. Drummond Rennie tells the story of a paper he sent, when deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for review to Vijay Soman.9 Having produced a critical review of the paper, Soman copied some of the paragraphs and submitted it to another journal, the American Journal of Medicine."

"
Here is an example of two reviewers commenting on the same papers.
-Reviewer A: `I found this paper an extremely muddled paper with a large number of deficits'
-Reviewer B: `It is written in a clear style and would be understood by any reader'.
"

"peer review" and "conspiracy" are synonymous terms, since it's establishment.
Not only is it a tool for enabaling conspiracy, but also it allows shitty researchers, to shut down any research contrary to their opinion, just because of ego problems.
It's a "big boys club".

>>15574170
It's bad when the results do not align with my political beliefs.

>>15577492
>"peer review" and "conspiracy" are synonymous terms
Its funny because its true

>>15576510
LOL

>>15574170
necessary but not sufficient

>>15579294
>necessary
I don't see how collusion between midwits in a necessity

>>15574802
based king wen poster

same principle (pic rel). it is bullshit. no you are never gonna find groundbreaking paradigm changers in a peer reviewed journal, simple as

/ thread

>>15574170
What was the way before?

As for the question, it's intentions were good but all it's resulted in is people deliberately making their papers obscure enough that no other researcher feels it's worth the time to properly figure out the paper enough to make a case against it. Especially when most the time people use papers to support their own papers the best you got is them ignoring the dodgy paper instead.

>>15580662
>What was the way before?
Oral defense in front of 100s of people in an auditorium, followed by a rigorous Q&A or debate with detractors. The paper was published regardless, but so were the arguments by opponents.

>>15580665
Is there any good reason why that was dropped in favor of (((peer review)))?

>>15574170
>Is the peer review system good for science

Good.
We NEED a system of peer re-production of experiments to confirm the all results.
Experiments MUST be exactly specified and be re-producible.

>>15581268
>Why was a decentralized natural system removed and replaced with a dysfunctional nepotistic cabal
Because there's something very fucking broken with human social instinct and alignment toward self-proclaimed authority figures.

>>15581279
Why does /sci/ defend peer review? They're literally science jannies.

>they do it for free
>they take their "job" very seriously
>they don't replicate the studies they vet
>they don't need to understand the studies they reject
>they only judge whether something looks good or not
>they apply voluntarily so they're very easy to infiltrate
>they do it because that small amount of petty power will inevitably attract the reddit mod type of midwit that tries to assert his intelligence vicariously
>they will reject papers they disagree with because that's not what the textbook they memorized and their self-perceived intelligence relies upon says

>>15574193
>It's good because it filters most bullshit agenda studies at the publishing stage. If your immediate reaction is to write some nonsense babble about trannies and jews then I suggest you peer review your brain with a shotgun.
Where's the guarantee that the peer won't be biased or have a conflict of interest with the paper?

>>15581511
>Where's the guarantee that the peer won't be biased or have a conflict of interest with the paper?
It is guaranteed that the peer will be biased and have a conflict of interest, anyone who fails to fall in line with the politically correct conventional wisdom of the day is excluded from publishing by the peer review system.

>>15583182
nice bump from literally the bottom of page 10 you obvious samefag

>>15583241
Thank you for bumping this post, kind anon.

>>15574170
>hindrance

>>15574181
True and real.
/thread

>>15574193
Is time for you first peer reviewed menstruation.

>>15574818
Republic is far better than democracy.

>>15574818
>Worst Form of Government
>>15583381
ALL forms of government is le bad.

Nah, peer review makes a lot of sense. People still do the forums regardless (it's like none of you have been to a conference before), but focus their talks on the highpoints and not the deep details and writing contained in a paper.

Nothing has really changed, academia was just as toxic before peer review papers.

>>15581268
Probably because it was less of a waste of time desu and didn't require a collection of peers near you. Like, what's better, taking hours of time out of 100s of intelligent people's days or randomly sending your publication out to a handful of peers for review and argument?

The only problem with peer review is that you're not allowed to submit your paper regardless, it's essentially the gatekeeping aspect of it that's the poison.

>>15583396
Also as an aside this ONLY affects academia and academic journals. Both government and industry papers do not require these hoops. If you're really bothered about sending your work to FREE publications, just go work for the government or industry.

It's all vanity, academia isn't the only route to technological and scientific progression.

>>15583414
academia isn't a route to technological and scientific progression.

>>15583388
the fact that there are plenty of people who would be stuck in an infinite loop in this flow chart is the answer to the posed question. Because yes the only reason people don't want to pay taxes is because they want the exact same things they already have but for free. And no amount of bullshit cope and pretense actually deflects that.

>>15583473
Why should I be forced to support the people who are too stupid to reach the end of the flow chart?

>>15583478
You cant escape them. You have welfare leeches who want free gibs on one end of the spectrum, and you have libtard tax dodgers who want to not pay for public infrastructure. In practice it is easier to just pay up and live with like 20% of the population being a net financial loss than to deal with executing them. The economics of spotting and disposing worthless people would simply not scale and end up being more expensive.

>>15583388
This is far too charitable, the government doesn't "waste" money if it's sovereign and controls fiat.

Obviously the core concept that a violent middleman does not actually contribute to [thing] is correct but the actual system is not a minor annoyance of "people paying more for less of things they don't value highly"

>>15574170
depends on who the peers are

>>15583500
>20% of the population being a net financial loss
white males are the only group who are net taxpayers, everyone else, over 70% of the population, is a net loss.

>>15583506
>Fed cope

>>15583586
>white males are the only group who are net taxpayers, everyone else, over 70% of the population, is a net loss.
Then white males are cucks for contributing to a system that is now against them.
Stop working, let it all crash, rebuild after the leeches starve to death or kill each other off.

>>15583682
>Then white males are cucks for contributing to a system that is now against them.
Based, when are the tax protests happening my fellow citizen?

>>15583586
Yeah without white men we'd have a deficit and have to print everything.

>>15583396
The peer review is perfect because it lets your peers review your work, except they're not necessarily your peers nor do they actually have to review.

>>15583264
>he doesn't know

>>15585064
Thank you for bumping this post, kind anon.

>>15581511 >>15583182 >>15583241 >>15583264 >>15585064 >>15585401
samefag

>>15583722
>>Then white males are cucks for contributing to a system that is now against them.
>Based, when are the tax protests happening my fellow citizen?
"protests" don't do shit glowie.
"protesting" in a designated "safe space" is for cucks also.
The rich 1% elite laugh at protestors.

>>15575540
>The Scientific Revolution was literally triggered by
Christian morality
atheists can't do science because atheists are fundamentally dishonest people

>>15576008
>Science could not have existed before replicable tests for hypotheses, because they are literally what science is.
please shut up you absolute midwit
what you are referring to is scientism, not science
if every scientist in the past was held up to the (((scientific))) standards of today, they'd all be ridiculed and laughed out by retards like you and we'd be living in mudhuts no doubt
science has never been gatekept harder and probably never been held back harder than it is today kys

>>15574170
Dunno man it seems to have allowed transgenderism to thrive so apparently its not working very well.

>>15574193
>It's good because it filters most bullshit agenda studies at the publishing stage.
LMAO

>>15585899
women are the majority of academics
woman all have penis envy
so the majority of peers reviewing academic works are in favor of chopping off penises.
then add jews into the mix and its a super majority

>>15585724
>Christian morality
>atheists can't do science because atheists are fundamentally dishonest people
Every classical scientist had beef with the christcuck dogma of their time and at best they were non-christian theists.
Christian contributions to science come from idiots like Bishop Berkeley, who with his retarded subjective idealism built the foundations of modern observer-dependent pseudoscience.

Why don't universities have experimentalists on staff in order to replicate the research produced by its other staff? Or better yet, some third party organization dedicated to doing exactly that.

>>15586875
>Christian contributions to science come from geniuses like the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, Alexander Flemming and every other successful and important scientist from the 1400s
onward

peer review is just maoist struggles sessions by a different name

>>15574170
You need some sort of bar for quality else any old retard can start doing trash science and putting it out and the wild and it would be indistinguishable from non trash science. So yeah it's good. I don't think journals should be forced to allow studies from any retard.

>>15588444
>two engineers, a conman, and a good example

>Wright brothers
Born to a bishop, yet nothing is known about their faith.
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/wright-brothers-in-flight-with-or-without-faith/
>Yet for all the attention on Wilbur and Orville Wright, little is known about their religious beliefs.
>“I’ve never heard anyone mention their faith,” said Rick Lawrenson, pastor of Nags Head Church near the site where the Wright brothers conducted the first successful manned airplane flight in 1903 on North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Among the members of Nags Head Church is a woman whose grandfather witnessed the first flight.

>Alexander Fleming
>Fleming came from a Presbyterian background, while his first wife Sarah was a (lapsed) Roman Catholic. It is said that he was not particularly religious, and their son Robert was later received into the Anglican church, while still reportedly inheriting his two parents' fairly irreligious disposition.[79]

Nice "christian" scientists you got there.

>>15589135
you're an atheist, so you lie about everything

>>15589142
You're a christcuck, so you deny evidence.

>>15589185
lies and bigotry against everyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
why do you feel so entitled to be open about the fact that you don't think "thou shalt not lie" in an unbreakable rule and still have people trust you?
its irrational to trust someone who admits that they don't mind telling lies

>>15589193
The people you mentioned are not particularly religious. Simple as.

>>15575696
I legimately wish I could've been a prayboy. Kid in the image reminds me of me when I was a kid but I was a bit more chubby from the sweets

>>15574193
imagine every single university in the world has to have a subscription to your scientific journal in order to function. that's a lot of revenue right there
who gets all the latest research first? the publisher!
if someone were to figure out cold fusion they can hold back that paper while they sell the insider knowledge.
maybe if someone does you a little favor you wont publish that paper that links mrna vaccines to myocarditis...or maybe you will?
btw Robert Maxwell established peer-review outside of medicine and made unholy amounts of money with it. That's Robert Maxwell:
>British media proprietor, member of parliament (MP), suspected spy, and fraudster.[1]
>"Maxwell insisted on grand titles – “International Journal of” was a favourite prefix. Peter Ashby, a former vice president at Pergamon, described this to me as a “PR trick”, but it also reflected a deep understanding of how science, and society’s attitude to science, had changed. Collaborating and getting your work seen on the international stage was becoming a new form of prestige for researchers, and in many cases Maxwell had the market cornered before anyone else realised it existed."[7]
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergamon_Press
Why yes it is the same Robert Maxwell father of Ghislane Maxwell. That lady who linked up with Jeffrey Epstein and is currently in Jail for child trafficking.
maybe peer-review actually is beneficial for science. but it's definetely beneficial for publishers.

>>15589899
>btw Robert Maxwell established peer-review outside of medicine and made unholy amounts of money with it.
>"no fucking way this is true, maybe a different Goldstein but not fucking Maxwell"
>google it
>it's true
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

>>15583506
retard

>>15574193
>kys goy
>((((((no gatekeeping)))))
3 shekles have been withdrawn from your JIDF account

>>15589899