Difference between revisions of "Peer Review"
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Criticisms of the peer-review crisis include the [[ad hominem]] nature of the review, the [[appeal to authority]], the [[selection bias]], the [[confirmation bias]] and the [[replication crisis]]. | Criticisms of the peer-review crisis include the [[ad hominem]] nature of the review, the [[appeal to authority]], the [[selection bias]], the [[confirmation bias]] and the [[replication crisis]]. | ||
<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. <footer>— Julian Schwinger</footer> | |||
</blockquote> | |||
Revision as of 15:04, 20 April 2020
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.Peer review is a relatively new form of gate-keeping used by the DISC to suppress ideas. It functions to keep out bad ideas and amplify good ideas. Like any human process, it fails in its function at times. It sometimes amplifies bad ideas such as those exposed by the Grievance Studies Hoax. It sometimes suppresses important ideas such as those discussed in The Portal Episode 19.
Criticisms of the peer-review crisis include the ad hominem nature of the review, the appeal to authority, the selection bias, the confirmation bias and the replication crisis.
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. <footer>— Julian Schwinger</footer>