Read on Twitter
I understand the important role that peer review is intended to play in science in terms of evaluating the correctness and importance of a paper, but I there is something fundamentally dysfunctional about it. I am particularly wary of evaluations of importance. 1/8
It reinforces orthodoxy. Almost by definition, you cannot succeed if you are controversial because your peers will reject you. And we know that great ideas are often controversial. 2/8
It relies on our estimation of how good experts in a field are at evaluating new ideas. It is tempting to say that, yes, good domain knowledge and competence are enough to make a good evaluation. That is what we think experts should be able to do. 3/8
But imagine using that metric in the startup world. If we enforce a system where peers were allowed to gatekeep ideas, I don& #39;t think we would have most of the successful startups we do. 4/8
It& #39;s not just an abstract problem. There are many accounts of seminal papers being rejected time and time again before it finally gets accepted. A romantic view would be that great papers will persevere through and eventually make it. 5/8
I personally doubt that. For every great paper that made it, there must be many more that were rejected and stayed rejected. 6/8
Ironically, it is also diametrically opposed to the fundamental basis of science, which is the primacy of experimental verification over having to convince people.
Note that the church can institute a strict peer review system and never get closer being science. 7/8
Note that the church can institute a strict peer review system and never get closer being science. 7/8
It is not like I have a great answer to this problem, but I don& #39;t find enough people as concerned about it as I am. 8/8
