there are a couple journals where peer review means the former. one that i can think of is Organic Sytheses orgsyn.org
Peer review
Submitted 9 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5a93c979-4f4e-4a73-b0c0-e5ebb1056d1d.png
Comments
skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 9 months ago
Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Never,
It’s peer review not peer verified.
English is my second language so I don’t get this post, it always meant someone else read it.
Mubelotix@jlai.lu 9 months ago
Agreed. Reviewing literally means just reading and making comments
Asafum@feddit.nl 9 months ago
I think to some of us a review is seen as a verification of veracity.
I honestly always mistook peer review as OPs post so I guess I was 37 when I learned that…
psud@aussie.zone 9 months ago
When I have reviewed IT system design changes, my favorite comment for correct-looking changes has been “looks good, I look forward to seeing whether it works”
MNByChoice@midwest.social 9 months ago
The ones that fail peer review go from “unexpected result” to “the fuck were you actually doing?!?”
Psychodelic@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’m just happy they learned what peer review means. I doubt even a third of Americans know what it means or its impact on their lives
xJREB@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I recently read an interesting article proposing to get rid of the current peer review system: experimental-history.com/…/the-rise-and-fall-of-p…
The argument was roughly this: for the unfathomable (unpaid) hours spent on peer review, it’s not very effective. Too much bad research still gets published and too much good research gets rejected. Science would also not be a weak-link problem but a strong-link problem, i.e., scientific progress would not depend on the quality of our worst research but of that of our best research (which would push through anyway in time). Pretty interesting read, even though I find it difficult to imagine how we would transition to such a system.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 9 months ago
Gonna need to build a second LHC!
Carrolade@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Need another James Webb too, better get started.
wewbull@feddit.uk 9 months ago
You can take the same data, or data from different observations, and show that the analysis is sound.
EvolvedTurtle@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Wait deadass?!?!? If so then 20 lol
TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz 9 months ago
Best part is the reviewers don’t get paid for their work, the publishers pocket all of the money they get from selling journals
Tja@programming.dev 9 months ago
While charging researchers to publish the paper and the reader for accessing it. If they can get away with it. It’s a fucking scam, thus arxiv and others exist.
Daxtron2@startrek.website 9 months ago
What did you think the “review” part of it meant other than reviewing it?
Jtotheb@lemmy.world 9 months ago
They thought the review process was more arduous than looking at some newly discovered scientific fact that no one had ever known before and saying “yeah that seems self-evident.”
If you feel like that’s reductive, now you know why I felt like responding
arbitrary_sarcasm@lemmy.world 9 months ago
In my field of research, there seems to be a recent push for artifact evaluation. It’s a separate process which is also optional but you get to brag about the fact that you get badges if your experiment results were replicated.
There’s also some push back against this since it’s additional work, but I think it’s a step in the right direction.
Windex007@lemmy.world 9 months ago
So it’s like a crowd strike code review
Contramuffin@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Scientists can get really petty in peer review. They won’t be able to catch if the data was manipulated or faked, but they’ll be able to catch everything else. Things such as inconclusive or unconvincing data, wrongful assumptions, missing data that would complement and further prove the conclusion, or even trivial things such as a sentence being unclear.
It generally works as long as you can trust that the author isn’t dishonest
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 9 months ago
A LOT of things work without safety nets if people engage honestly.
The problem, with FAR more than science, is many, many people are distinctly NOT honest.
stardustpathsofglory@lemmy.world 9 months ago
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 9 months ago
In my field, peer review was “obviously hasn’t read enough Foucault”.
Skalix@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Was lucky to contribute to a paper for the first time recently and was cerintainly suprised to see the what peer reviews looked like lmao
frezik@midwest.social 9 months ago
Is it better or worse than code reviews in programming? Typically, if it’s 5 lines, we scrutinize everything. If it’s 500 lines, it’s a quick scan with a “looks good” comment.
Skalix@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I’d say its similar. Though from the limit dataset of peer reviews I have, I’d say that peer reviews are more informative / detailed while code reviews usually have way less typos lol.
frauddogg@lemmygrad.ml 9 months ago
…Today years old, what the fuck? Is this how so much bunk science makes it to the front-pages of supposedly-science-related websites?
wewbull@feddit.uk 9 months ago
Yes. There’s no prestige in spending time and money on trying to falsify other people’s results, even though it’s the Cruz of everything. People would rather spend their time working on their own discovery.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
Science is essentially just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.
The more shit you throw, the higher chance there is that something sticks. You just need to make sure the shit is properly documented, and that’s what the peer review is for?
JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 months ago
I doubt this will stick on the wall.
Throws it to the wall and it sticks.
Holy shit!
python@programming.dev 9 months ago
LGTM!
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 9 months ago
LGTM ⛴️
niartenyaw@midwest.social 9 months ago
HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 months ago
This is why I always shake my head and dudebros saying “Naw bro it is/is not peer reviewed, so it’s bullshit!”
Even though there are many times when the peer was wrong or outright lying to protect their pre-conceived notion or pet theory… but if you just call that the “Galileo Gambit” you don’t have to take that seriously…
Yes, I’m taking the fact that Penrose was right about Orch-OR all along in stride.
Comment105@lemm.ee 9 months ago
I’m only a layman casual, but I have never in my life seen an actual peer review.
I’ve read/skimmed actual papers from primary sources whenever I actually care to try to understand the proof for something. No idea what a peer review looks like, no idea if the paper I read were ever peer reviewed.
I’m guessing maybe the publisher itself also/sometimes does the “we read it, looks fine”-process? Either way, I’ve never seen one. They’re like some mythical creature I’ve only ever heard descriptions of.
Liz@midwest.social 9 months ago
For any scientific journal that’s worth anything, your article has to get approved by other scientists in your field before the journal will accept it. They’re mostly just looking for exactly what this post is referencing. Does it seem legit? If it passes a once-over by the other scientists, then it gets published.
This is why you should not trust any single study by itself. It’s just the results from one experiment that easily could have had a consequential error no one picked up. The results could be statistical noise. Hell, even rarely, you’ll get someone who’s been faking data. This is not to say “science is broken,” only that science has never relied on the results from a single unreplicated experiment to determine truth. If you read about scientists from the past, it’s fairly common for them to publish a landmark paper and for no one to care, or even for people to argue they’re wrong. Only with additional research do they get proved correct and we imagine that everyone immediately accepted this new paradigm shift off of one single paper.
Comment105@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Is there no paper publishing site where other scientists can put out publicly visible peer reviews (with the names of the reviewers attached) after the paper is published?
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Same but some of my friends i went to uni with is a moron who went on to do a PhD…
Its like having your work marked and, if they don’t Iike it, they’ll just say like “not clear enough” or “needs more research” and deny its publication.
I mean, what they meant was “you haven’t addressed Dr Y et. al.'s critique of that particular essay’s attempt at modelling the disease you’re researching” but they’re not just going to come out and tell you that. That would be too easy.
Every now and then I feel like I can hear them muttering some kind of highly expletive death threat at reviewer number 3.
tetris11@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
It’s a numbers game.
Science.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 months ago
Did peer F get murdered for indicating they were going to reject the paper? 🔍🧐
tetris11@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
peer F accepted the paper
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 9 months ago
He typed using technology that wouldn’t exist but for Science.
tetris11@lemmy.ml 9 months ago
I believe in the scientific method. I believe in peer review. I just don’t like that scientific journals have become so commodified that a lesser journal would accept volumes of bad science and bad review in order to boost its rankings whilst boosting the prestige of the scientists who is measured on the quantity of their work and not the quality.
Entire paper mills exist purely for this reason, and it’s a scourge on the scientific community.
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 9 months ago
NOT science. At all. That’s publication and clout. Two things science distinctly is NOT, but needs because information must still disseminate in some way.