Adam Mastroianni on how peer review went from a good idea to a broken institution - with data showing it doesn't actually catch errors or improve papers.
“Peer review is treated as sacred, but Adam shows the evidence is damning. The comparison to pre-peer-review science quality is eye-opening.”
2 comments
Join OpenLinq to join the discussion
The stat about reviewers failing to catch planted errors in 80% of cases should be front-page news. We're building the entire scientific enterprise on a system that demonstrably doesn't work.
What's interesting is that pre-prints are already proving the alternative works. arXiv papers get more scrutiny from actual experts than most journal submissions get from assigned reviewers.