I never learned peer review as anything more than others in the field reviewing the paper and confirming it meets standards. Its like logic vs truth. Peer review is like proofreading. Is the structure of the experiment proper. Is there controls. Is the statistical analysis proper. so on and so forth. Honestly though science is dependent on replication which used to be a sort of competition so it worked. Oh you think this is this and this is how you proved it. Well I will see for myself and I will lambast you if it does not work. It was kinda personal with the field before modern times. Competition was very direct. Now no lab wants to do anything but something they can say is new and a discovery. I feel at least 50% of public science funding should be for experiment replication

It's a numbers game.

• X submits paper to Journal 1, and peers A,B,C reject it.
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 2, and only peers D and E reject it.
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 3, and only peer G rejects it
• X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 4, and no one rejects it.

Journal 4 increments prestige, Scientist X increments prestige, but nothing true or good is actually gained.

Science.

there are a couple journals where peer review means the former. one that i can think of is Organic Sytheses orgsyn.org

Thank the greed. Even bad results should be kept. It's still knowledge. To get closer to a goal, many mistakes are made and we have to learn from them. Using the scientific method to find out that something does not work is still valuable.

Never,

It’s peer review not peer verified.

English is my second language so I don’t get this post, it always meant someone else read it.

The ones that fail peer review go from "unexpected result" to "the fuck were you actually doing?!?"

Gonna need to build a second LHC!

I recently read an interesting article proposing to get rid of the current peer review system: https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The argument was roughly this: for the unfathomable (unpaid) hours spent on peer review, it's not very effective. Too much bad research still gets published and too much good research gets rejected. Science would also not be a weak-link problem but a strong-link problem, i.e., scientific progress would not depend on the quality of our worst research but of that of our best research (which would push through anyway in time). Pretty interesting read, even though I find it difficult to imagine how we would transition to such a system.

I'm just happy they learned what peer review means. I doubt even a third of Americans know what it means or its impact on their lives

Wait deadass?!?!? If so then 20 lol

What did you think the "review" part of it meant other than reviewing it?

In my field of research, there seems to be a recent push for artifact evaluation. It's a separate process which is also optional but you get to brag about the fact that you get badges if your experiment results were replicated.

There's also some push back against this since it's additional work, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

So it's like a crowd strike code review

Damn I guess I was today years old. I remember in high school chemistry class we were taught about peer review and had to do it for each other, except the way we did was actually testing and replicating results, so that cemented the misconception.

In my field, peer review was "obviously hasn't read enough Foucault".

Science is essentially just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

The more shit you throw, the higher chance there is that something sticks. You just need to make sure the shit is properly documented, and that's what the peer review is for?

Was lucky to contribute to a paper for the first time recently and was certainly suprised to see what peer reviews looked like lmao

relevant Dr. Fatima

LGTM!

LGTM ⛴️

This is why I always shake my head and dudebros saying "Naw bro it is/is not peer reviewed, so it's bullshit!"

Even though there are many times when the peer was wrong or outright lying to protect their pre-conceived notion or pet theory... but if you just call that the "Galileo Gambit" you don't have to take that seriously...

I'm only a layman casual, but I have never in my life seen an actual peer review.

I've read/skimmed actual papers from primary sources whenever I actually care to try to understand the proof for something. No idea what a peer review looks like, no idea if the paper I read were ever peer reviewed.

I'm guessing maybe the publisher itself also/sometimes does the "we read it, looks fine"-process? Either way, I've never seen one. They're like some mythical creature I've only ever heard descriptions of.