▲ | physarum_salad 5 days ago | |||||||
That paper was debunked as a result of the open peer review enabled by preprints! Its astonishing how many people miss that and assume that closed peer review even performs that function well in the first place. For the absolute top journals or those with really motivated editors closed peer review is good. However, often it's worse...way worse (i.e. reams of correct seeming and surface level research without proper methods or review of protocols). The only advantage to closed peer review is it saves slight scientific embarrassment. However, this is a natural part of taking risks ofc and risky science is great. P.s. in this case I really don't like the paper or methods. However, open peer review is good for science. | ||||||||
▲ | ajmurmann 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
To your point the paper AFAIK wasn't debunked because someone read it carefully but because people tried to reproduce it. Peer reviews don't reproduce. I think we'd be better off with fewer peer reviews and more time spent actually reproducing results. That's why we had a while crisis named after that | ||||||||
| ||||||||
▲ | chaps 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
To be clear, I'm not saying that peer review is bad!! Quite the opposite. | ||||||||
|