peer review
adding page this day
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 7:00 AM – 21 Sep 2017 :
Peer review processes risk stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for game-changing scientific discoveries. https://t.co/J1I2AbNBjn (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/910851236643135488?s=17)
Einstein’s theory of relativity was criticised in 1931 in a book titled “100 authors against Einstein”. He replied that if they were right, one author would have been enough. This is an extreme example of the perils of peer review when dealing with brilliant researchers at the cutting edge of science. It is of vital importance right now to avoid suppressing genius in favour of apparent practicality. To achieve this, we need to find a way to continue to allow for the exceptional and to produce the science seeds that blossom into economic prosperity.
The primary goal of the rapid expansion of academia was to greatly increase the number of students attending universities, a highly laudable objective. But an unforeseen consequence was that the ranks of academics engaged in research also grew far beyond that which could be supported more or less unconditionally and public financial support had to be rationed.
Today, academics must prepare written proposals on what they want to do and submit them to funding agencies for their evaluation – a process known as peer review. There is no escape from this process, which can take months that would otherwise be spent on research. Funding success rates are rarely more than 25 per cent. The agencies support only excellent proposals but as a result, freedom of research has been severely curtailed.
Nowadays, however, funding based on perceived excellence is far too targeted, is directed towards established groups and, most important, young scientists rarely get a look in.
We are not proposing the abandonment of peer review but, rather, the recognition of the need for a separate category of highly innovative research with appropriate funding.
One approach could be for a few universities to support their own innovative research funding schemes from their own resources. Exceptionally high standards should be set, but above all, the people they fund should be chosen without using consensus. Participating universities should accept that funding success rates would be very low but in some cases the results would be dramatic. Based on the personal experience of one of the authors, this is an inexpensive form of research as the scientists involved are not competing and expensive equipment is rarely required. This is an effective way to expand knowledge and support basic research. There may be others.
let’s try this.. graeber min/max law
We strongly believe that action is needed to meet funding needs that peer review does not satisfactorily address. The resulting benefits would be incalculable and continue to allow the blossoming of creativity over the coming years, just as we have benefited from the work of Einstein and other greats.
__________
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 5:00 AM – 27 Jun 2019 :
Peer review is not just quality control, it is part of the social infrastructure of research
https://t.co/jW0AlLl0Q7 #Research (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/1144198912351379458?s=17)Besides being a quality control device, peer review is a distributed effort for recognizing and increasing the value of manuscripts and so is inherently ‘constructive’. It is simultaneously a *context in which experts develop, adapt and enforce standards of judgement, a form of (direct and indirect) connection and cooperation, a disciplined, mediated discourse between (often unrelated) experts in a “safe” (though often disorganised and ambiguous) environment.
*? i’m thinking that’s not a good thing
Studying it (pr) only as a quality screening context does not pay justice to the complexity of this key institution around which the autonomy, legitimacy and credibility of science is built.
legit?.. enforced legit ness via judgement of experts..?
__________
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
__________
be you. 