| ▲ | hnfong a day ago | |
IMHO what should change is we stop putting "peer reviewed" articles on a pedestal. Even if peer review is as rigorous as code reviewed (the former which is usually unpaid), we all know that reviewed code still has bugs, and a programmer would be nuts to go around saying "this code is reviewed by experts, we can assume it's bug free, right?" But there are too many people who are just assuming peer reviewed articles means they're somehow automatically correct. | ||
| ▲ | vkou a day ago | parent [-] | |
> IMHO what should change is we stop putting "peer reviewed" articles on a pedestal. Correct. Peer review is a minimal and necessary but not sufficient step. | ||