All You Need To Know About The Peer Review Process

In this episode you will learn all the details about how the peer review process works.
🪐 SUBSCRIBE / 🚀 LIKE / 👽 COMMENT
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe
Website & Podcast: www.theskepticsguide.org/
Patreon: / skepticsguide
Facebook: / theskepticsguide
Instagram: / theskepticsguide
Twitter: / skepticsguide
TikTok: / skepticsguide
✉️ Send your questions to:
[e-mail]
Check out Our Books:
📘 The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake
📙 The Skeptics’ Guide to the Future: What Yesterday’s Science and Science Fiction Tell Us About the World of Tomorrow
www.theskepticsguide.org/our-...
#SGU #SkepticsGuide #Science

[@keithdavies6771]

In carpentry, I can walk into anyone's house, and find faults in the work,. I have seen stuff that I couldn't find anything, but that is rare as sushi. Any proper carpenter could find flaws in my work, as well, and I'm okay with that. But...I think that often there is a lot of ego involved with all of us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect that goes into peer review in scientific studies, too.

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

100%. And academics are HEAVILY influenced by notoriety and prestige. To keep this more honest the reviewers should have no idea who did the research, or at what school. The required changes should also be put to silent vote... but at the same time, quality restrictions have to be weighed against practicality; there are ALOT of papers coming out every day. * in the modern age, it may make more sense for the papers to be anonymously submitted to online groups of experts (like the online physics paper site). Then you crowd source the efforts and ppl w varied expertise can comment.

[@keithdavies6771]

@@theoriginalmonstermaker Thanks

[@gregorywb1]

Thank you for taking the time to share this, I will share it to my social media. I wish more people understood the peace of mind science actually affords. The world is going wonky; everyone is settling for a personal mythos

[@mfryer100]

Great discussion. Thanks!

[@allllllx]

Nothing about impact factor and similar metrics?

[@meredithnavin1358]

Thank you for this! This is literally something I am about to talk about in my next video on my KZbin channel! Super useful!

[@paullavery866]

It's unusual that you were able to post this 12 days prior.

[@keithdavies6771]

I've always wanted free public access to papers, but I often only understand the abstract, anyway, and the conclusion. I don't know if this is true, but I think that paying for access goes towards the science (?)

[@theoriginalmonstermaker]

Peer review is yet another thing that remains the same just because "it was always that way", but could be vastly improved in our modern, interconnected, online world. Why not just have online submission portals moderated by all the academics in that field? Then the work can be crowd sourced to hundreds of people instead of only examined by a select few, behind closed doors. (It may even be a good idea to use that forum to register the studies, and keep track of logged progress) I haven't really thought it through, but these sites can potentially be maintained by the institutions, so that uploaded data is Leroy for future reference, and no longer individual's responsibility once the research is complete. ... seems like with some time and attention, this could be an easy solution, and also permit eventual deep dives (by AI?) into huge compilations of data. EDIT: This system would also be a benefit to others searching for research results; alongside the study they read, they can see other expert's opinions of the study. In addition, the system could log replication attempts by other researchers, and indicate the "strength" of the conclusions based on the # and success of replications.

[@TipsyTadpole]

tyty