It is odd that the “institution” of peer review should come up time and again, but sample this- it is unpaid labour, few people “profit” from this and holds no water unless you wish to crow in front of a committee that you have volunteered your “precious time”. The monetary benefits don’t flow down. Why should peer review be free in the first place?
From the original link, I am attaching a screenshot of a twitter spat-
So, the peer-review system is either the last bastion protecting us from a revised old boys’ network, or a waste of time and resources that could better be spent on post-publication review. It’s either an efficient if imperfect tool for sifting through millions of research articles published each year, or an absolute disaster. Probably it’s both.I don’t know what to think. Consider computer science. They mostly seem to have abandoned journals; instead they have something like 10 major conferences a year, and the idea is to publish a bunch of papers in each conference. Getting published in a conference proceedings is competitive, but it’s different than publishing in a journal. Or maybe it’s more like publishing in a medical journal, I’m not sure. Hype seems to be important. You gotta show that your method is an order of magnitude better than the alternatives. Which is tough: how can you improve performance by an order of magnitude, 10 times a year?bla bla bla PEER REVIEW bla bla bla « Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
I was genuinely surprised to know about the “computer sciences” where presentation to a conference is valued more than actual publishing. I have heard murmurs of resentment where verifiable code is uncommon, but there is enough hype around computational outcomes being “better” than the previous algorithm. This requires a later look and is part of my evolving thought process.