Re: OT: about peer review

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken.
  https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
   There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.

It's a book that is designed to appeal to Cursitor Doom and other fans of fatuous conspiracy theories.
"Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish."
One has to wonder how.

yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

Not that Jan Panteltje can cite any. Peer review isn't perfect, but it works better than anything else that anybody has come up with. It's very good at cracking down on stuff that is obviously wrong. I haven't refereed all that many scientific papers, but rejecting the ones that were obviously wrong was remarkably easy, and took a lot less work than finding and explaining more subtle errors.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com