Difference between revisions of "Peer Review"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
312 bytes added ,  15:11, 20 April 2020
no edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:


<blockquote>
<blockquote>
The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science.  — Julian Schwinger
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."   — Julian Schwinger
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Also, funding by peer review results in group-think and whole scientific fields floating off in a self-perpetuating irreality bubble for decades. Randomness will fund mavericks, mostly crackpots, but some may blow up established dysfunctional disciplines.  — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 David Chapman]
"Also, funding by peer review results in group-think and whole scientific fields floating off in a self-perpetuating irreality bubble for decades. Randomness will fund mavericks, mostly crackpots, but some may blow up established dysfunctional disciplines."   — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 David Chapman]
</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
"A technical argument by a trusted author, which is hard
to check and looks similar to arguments known to be
correct, is hardly ever checked in detail."  — [https://twitter.com/i/status/1128389263526060032 [https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins Vladimir Voevodsky]]
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


170

edits

Navigation menu