The Problem With Peer Review - Eric Weinstein | The Portal Podcast Clips
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2020
- "Peer review is a cancer from outer space. It came from the biomedical community. It invaded science." - Eric Weinstein
In this portal podcast clip, Eric Weinstein discusses the issue of peer review with Bret Weinstein.
Please give this clip a LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more clips every Wednesday.
--LINK TO MAIN EPISODE:
• Bret Weinstein on "The...
--CLIP SUGGESTION CREDITS:
BeefSandwich27, boqu, afke.
--WEBSITE:
ericweinstein.org/
--TWITTER:
/ theportalclips
--INSTAGRAM:
/ theportalclips
We're trying to share important messages in bite-sized packets. If you enjoyed this clip, please share the video, it really does help a lot.
--SHARE THIS VIDEO:
• The Problem With Peer ...
--QUOTES FROM THIS VIDEO:
"Peer-review is not peer-review. It sounds like peer-review. It is peer-injunction. It is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work."
"There are reasons that great work cannot be peer-reviewed. Furthermore, you have entire fields that are existing now with electronic archives that are not peer-reviewed."
#ericweinstein #peerreview #theportalpodcast
Great stuff Eric!
Scientist here. Peer reviewer is flawed. But without it, the quality of science would go wayyyyy down.
I don’t think this was a very compelling argument against peer review. It’s just one guy airing a grievance without the other person even there to tell their side of the story ...
Look, everyone. The Weinstein brothers don’t want to shield work from peer review. They want peer review to be a publicly accountable process. There’s a ton of questionable gatekeeping that goes on when a reviewer doesn’t have to put their name on their review. I hear the Weinsteins saying that editors of journals should have control, and the bar for publication should be a little lower than it currently is. Journal editors can make reasonable decisions about what is “worthy of being publicized” and THEN the peers will review it out in the open. Double blind peer review enables a lot of shady stuff to happen before the work is even granted a wide audience.
"Peer review is a cancer" says the guy who refused to respond to criticism because it did not pass peer review.
Stop interrupting, Eric!
Peer review really means truth by consensus.
Eric is so close to putting his bro in a headlock
Brothers interacting - priceless.
At times I struggle to distinguish the concept of peer review from group think. Even scientists are human and incline to run with the herd even when shouting loudly that they aren't.
I became acquainted with the peer review process in 1972 when I published my first paper in the journal Brain Research. I had some minor problems getting it published, but it was finally published and I got a lot of reprint requests. The lesson I learned was that you sometimes have to argue with the journal editors to get your work published. I later became an assistant editor of a journal and made the mistake of sending perfectly good work to a very nasty, envious, and embittered (albeit highly intelligent and productive) reviewer. The reviewer made mincemeat out of the submission. I felt awful for the author of the paper, but felt that there was nothing I could do. I believe in the peer review process, but it certainly has its weaknesses. I was glad to eventually get out of academics (too much envy, competition, narcissism, and outright corruption). Every field has its problems, but academics is vicious.
Eric, small point. you need to let people finish their points. You interrupt too much.
I think what may be overlooked here is that science is still something done by human beings in human organisations.
Eric's hair is in line for a Nobel Prize.
I was peer reviewed in middle school. It did not go well.
"I don't care about my nobel prize. All I care about is finding out." - Richard Feynman.
I can understand where they're coming from, but what's the alternative?
'don't bother this is a podcast' lol
Peer review in itself is a good thing preventing bullshit to go through, the problems you raise is more about how it's done
I have had to put up with peer review for over 120 papers (all published). It can be infuriating. But as awful as it can be, there is no better system in the offing.