Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific method. And, just good philosophy. The idea is that you propose a theory to your colleagues and see if they can find any logical flaws. Nothing wrong with that. Its a good thing. Fraud is fraud and "peer review" now doesnt mean anything because of scientific fraud. So, scientific fraud is the problem and is what needs to be done away with. Not peer review.
One medical journal had to be closed down due to the fact that so many of the papers submitted were fraudulent or plagiarized. It was maybe a year into COVD right around when AI was coming out. The papers were run through an AI system and AI found many flaws similar to DOGE.
But it's not really a good philosophy. While it filters out quacks and retards, it also invariably filters out anything truly revolutionary and cutting edge. The cutting edge is the whole point of science and why society invests so much into it. The whole process of creating science, including peer review, makes it a poor investment
If you discover something revolutionary that goes against the currently accepted paradigm, your colleagues aren't going to accept it immediately even if the data and logic is infallible. They will, in fact, probably actively fight against your (objectively true) conclusion. The biggest names in your field will laugh and deride you, calling you a quack and a retard. We've seen countless examples of this through history.
No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.
Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific method. And, just good philosophy. The idea is that you propose a theory to your colleagues and see if they can find any logical flaws. Nothing wrong with that. Its a good thing. Fraud is fraud and "peer review" now doesnt mean anything because of scientific fraud. So, scientific fraud is the problem and is what needs to be done away with. Not peer review.
One medical journal had to be closed down due to the fact that so many of the papers submitted were fraudulent or plagiarized. It was maybe a year into COVD right around when AI was coming out. The papers were run through an AI system and AI found many flaws similar to DOGE.
Exactly. Its the journals and institutions that are the problem. Scientific fraud.
But it's not really a good philosophy. While it filters out quacks and retards, it also invariably filters out anything truly revolutionary and cutting edge. The cutting edge is the whole point of science and why society invests so much into it. The whole process of creating science, including peer review, makes it a poor investment
If you discover something revolutionary that goes against the currently accepted paradigm, your colleagues aren't going to accept it immediately even if the data and logic is infallible. They will, in fact, probably actively fight against your (objectively true) conclusion. The biggest names in your field will laugh and deride you, calling you a quack and a retard. We've seen countless examples of this through history.
Right. But, thats a different problem (corruption of the peer review process and incompetence in the peer review process).
That's like saying gravity is just the corruption of my inability to fly.
The corruption is built-in and inevitable because of the way people are.
Not really. Blaming peer review is like blaming experimentation or hypothesis. Scientific fraud is the problem, not science as a methodology.
Peer Review can be used for good but it is all too often used for gate keeping.
Has science really improved since peer review was introduced?
Without the reproduction of results, peer review is next to worthless
Right. Peer review usually comes after this step.
No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.