the most effective defense of the journal system I can think of is that it punctuates the normal work of doing science into big celebrations and I like seeing ppl celebrate

but I am also like gradually sharing research with progressively public review could make scientific communication more of a system of continual collective mentorship. yno instead of working for years and then paying a lot so 3 ppl can decide if it was good or nah.

ppl love criticising stuff after it's published but when ppl show random pics off their microscope ppl are like "oh dang that is cool! did you try this?" and I don't think it's unrealistic to say we can build a review system that cultivates that kinda energy.

Follow

@jonny note that this difference is also because published research is the closest thing we have to codified human knowledge of "the truth". In that sense a criticism of published work is actually working as intended, I think.

The enthusiasm when sharing results from your research is what I generally experienced when doing research on my PhD, even with groups that disagreed on our interpretation of the results in papers.

@mvgorcum
absolutely, lots of positive energy comes from the informal communication of science. I'm referring to formal review specifically. in my opinion we can stand to have the stakes lowered substantially with continual evaluation, which is largely how science works informally, but needs a different model of credit and formalizing consensus.

criticisms of the way peer review works are broad and deep. I think a better metaphor than 'filtering' might be 'quorum sensing.'

@mvgorcum
I think both these thoughts gravitate around scientific communication!

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!