I've read several articles lately on the uselessness of peer review.
From 2006, from the editor of BMJ:
"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief."
@sda Is there a non obvious alternative? I can't think of any, and I think there is nothing odd in that. Any kind of non trivial knowledge has no value unless you can convince your peers to believe/understand its value. That's the whole point.
Most of the problems outlined in the article seem to be fundamental problems of human communication/organisation/relationships, or specific technicalities of some established industry/institution.
"Any kind of non trivial knowledge has no value unless you can convince your peers to believe/understand its value. That's the whole point."
True. Does peer review, as it exists today, do that?
@sda Depends on your peers I guess, or whom you chose to be your peers. The author of the article is clearly displeased by their peers, and some other people who make important decisions in their field, but I don't think that's a problem with the concept itself. "Bad" people can screw anything up.
@sda I wouldn't know, but if you're asking me to do some handwaving, I would start form a revolution of the education system, cause I'm afraid of building on unstable foundation.
In this specific context my point was that the problems outlined in the article are much more fundamental than peer review and fixing some of those is akin to "solving" humanity.