Peer review is everyone’s job. Not just editors and publishers at select publications. What I suspect complicates things is information overload and people dumping a bunch of misinformation in the mix of literature to try and keep the current system working in their favor.
Peer review provides an unreliable assurance of quality, and encourages people not to think critically for themselves and to put blind faith in a study simply because "it's peer-reviewed!"
Just yesterday, tis reported anonymously, by several, the Trump said he'd bomb Moscow and Beijing, smart guy. He shut our country down, hasn't read the Constitution nor the bill of rights. And may be our best hope. Tragic tragedy raging...if only RFKjr applied to Palestine the same focus to Palestine as to satanthony Fauci. If only our acting president SatanTony Blinken practiced diplomacy rather than bad Neil Young songs in ukroNazie dive bars
As a non-PhD, I have never been a peer reviewer, but I have responded to many comments made by other reviewers regarding my lab's work.
Peer review functions at the micro-level, clarifying details of a given set of experiments. However, its purview does not (cannot?) address underlying assumptions of the work, as approval of those assumptions is made at the funding authority level, not at the level of individual primary investigators.
Thus, a scientific hypothesis which does not incorporate "approved" assumptions will not be funded. And, those "approved" assumptions are typically determined for ideological or profitability reasons, seldom for scientific reasons.
So, as peer review has little influence on the accuracy or integrity of overall "scientific" assumptions or proclamations, a "fixed" peer review would offer little actual improvement.
Peer review *can* be used to vet good science. But the weight that rests upon that *can* is pretty enormous. I know the Perth Group had to jump through hoops to get some of their work published. One things they noted was that often journals would decline something that seemed controversial before it even got to reviewers, this seems like it's part of the foley of the peer review process to be honest. Apparently one of the challenges with the peer review process has to do with it being blinded to one degree or another, often with the authors of the paper not knowing who the reviewers are. It's supposed to allow for candid feedback from the reviewers, but it seems to also open the door to abuse.
Peer review is a mutual admiration society. If you are in the club and follow the rules you get published and if you are not in the club or don't follow the rules you don't get published. Also, I have read that the Journal of the American Medical Association was created as a pay to play. As long as you paid you received promotion in the JAMA. If profit is involved nothing can be trusted to be what is advertised and is always intended to rob, rape and pillage.
Peer review is everyone’s job. Not just editors and publishers at select publications. What I suspect complicates things is information overload and people dumping a bunch of misinformation in the mix of literature to try and keep the current system working in their favor.
Peer review provides an unreliable assurance of quality, and encourages people not to think critically for themselves and to put blind faith in a study simply because "it's peer-reviewed!"
Just yesterday, tis reported anonymously, by several, the Trump said he'd bomb Moscow and Beijing, smart guy. He shut our country down, hasn't read the Constitution nor the bill of rights. And may be our best hope. Tragic tragedy raging...if only RFKjr applied to Palestine the same focus to Palestine as to satanthony Fauci. If only our acting president SatanTony Blinken practiced diplomacy rather than bad Neil Young songs in ukroNazie dive bars
"Can it be improved, or ought it to be scrapped altogether? Is there a viable alternative and if so, what is that alternative?"
It can be improved - but not through the political process. I believe peer review can only improve when there are robust alternatives to challenge it.
I spoke with Kevin McKernan, who has some great insights (from years of experience) on this issue, here:
https://bretigne.substack.com/p/kevin-mckernan-is-the-peer-review-983?utm_source=publication-search
And about viable alternatives, here:
https://bretigne.substack.com/p/kevin-mckernan-on-revolutionizing-ca2?utm_source=publication-search
As a non-PhD, I have never been a peer reviewer, but I have responded to many comments made by other reviewers regarding my lab's work.
Peer review functions at the micro-level, clarifying details of a given set of experiments. However, its purview does not (cannot?) address underlying assumptions of the work, as approval of those assumptions is made at the funding authority level, not at the level of individual primary investigators.
Thus, a scientific hypothesis which does not incorporate "approved" assumptions will not be funded. And, those "approved" assumptions are typically determined for ideological or profitability reasons, seldom for scientific reasons.
So, as peer review has little influence on the accuracy or integrity of overall "scientific" assumptions or proclamations, a "fixed" peer review would offer little actual improvement.
Peer review *can* be used to vet good science. But the weight that rests upon that *can* is pretty enormous. I know the Perth Group had to jump through hoops to get some of their work published. One things they noted was that often journals would decline something that seemed controversial before it even got to reviewers, this seems like it's part of the foley of the peer review process to be honest. Apparently one of the challenges with the peer review process has to do with it being blinded to one degree or another, often with the authors of the paper not knowing who the reviewers are. It's supposed to allow for candid feedback from the reviewers, but it seems to also open the door to abuse.
Peer review is a mutual admiration society. If you are in the club and follow the rules you get published and if you are not in the club or don't follow the rules you don't get published. Also, I have read that the Journal of the American Medical Association was created as a pay to play. As long as you paid you received promotion in the JAMA. If profit is involved nothing can be trusted to be what is advertised and is always intended to rob, rape and pillage.