front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |review |
For a system that
demands ever increasing rigor and levels of proof from scientists, it
remains itself remarkably untouched by the rigors of science. Lots of bad things: slow subjective, prone to bias, por at detecting gross defects, useless at detecting fraud. Starting with an ethical stance shouldn't be made in private; certainly continuation of the asymmetrical power relationships that exist between reviewer and reviewed. 471 papers post entire publication prehistory The last veil: We may move to a system where authors and readrs can watch the peer review system on the world wide web as it happens and contribute their comments. First attempt was th conservative: if reviewer is blind the author must be too. Removing author's details didn't improve quality of opinion RCTs |