pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 7 replies \ @cryotosensei 17 Jan \ on: The strain on scientific publishing science
I came here to express similar sentiments stated by @Rothbardian_fanatic. What qualifies one to be a community reviewer, and would he or she have the requisite expertise to critique papers? And would a can of worms be opened as relationships come into play? How can we ensure the impartiality of the reviewers involved?
What qualifies one to be a community reviewer, and would he or she have the requisite expertise to critique papers?
That brings us back to the positive side of peer review. In theory, this is what makes sure that the reviewer is qualified, in one way or another. I only get to referee papers where the editor knows I'm capable of carrying out the specific equations or simulations used in the paper. And these days, many journals show the referee reports along with the papers.
Making this process more open could lead to some kind of review by the community where the opaqueness and secrecy of the current review system gets addressed. At least with it being open, one can better see if relationships (guanxi) have corrupted the process...
reply
I think that removing some of the money from the process may also provide less problems than we have now..
reply
Fully agree that the way openaccess journals have basically "pay-to-publish" journals has corrupted a big part of the field. That's why, sadly, the "reader-pays-to-read" model is still the more reliable than the "pay-to-publish" model. All of this is because of the middle man (the editor) that is profiting all the way, without adding much value to the equation. My research should be open for everyone to read, as my research was paid with tax money, so the taxpayer should have free access to it.
All of this is valid within the current paradigm. But for reasons mentioned in other messages, the current paradigm needs a drastic overhaul to actually solve the issues.
reply
Your observation on who owns your research is one that is denied in most cases. If a company pays for research it is their property to dispose of as they like, including publication or non-publication. If a taxpayer funded research project is owned by the taxpayers, then there should only be a publish option and no other. The state could put a small fee for reading, just to keep the trolls out, but not large enough to keep the taxpayers out. Trolls seem to go for the free stuff the most.
BTW, that is also why I like stacker news, not many trolls.
reply
I also have another caveat, this only works for physical science, not sciences that involve humans. Sciences like psychology, sociology praxeology, and others will not work with he same scientific method because humans learn and the variables cannot be controlled. Trying to work the “scientific method” from the physical world in the humanities world, looks to me like scientism, not science.
reply
Right, most of what I wrote was based on my experience as a physicist where the human aspect is minimized. I'm not sure how much of that translates to the world of humanities where I don't have any personal experience. Indeed, the problem of confounding variables, etc are much harder to assess and control. That's why I am also always much more skeptical on conclusions made on human behavior. Remember the reproducibility crisis in the field of psychology...
reply
The problem in the human studies areas with reproducibility are legend. The whole point there is that they are applying the wrong methods to study their topics. They should be using praxeology rather than other methods. When they use it en economics the results are amazingly reproducible! Some economists do not like to admit that because they are applying physical science methods to economics and getting results that are all fantasyland.
reply