Via Graham Steel the awesome article Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief.
“Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that there was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud. […]
“He said science would be better off if it abandoned pre-publication peer review entirely and left it to online readers to determine “what matters and what doesn’t”.
“That is the real peer review: not all these silly processes that go on before and immediately after publication,” he said.”
That’s just a part of the article, go read the counter arguments by Georgina Mace.
Make your opinion about this.
Here is mine.
In the post Reproducibility vs peer review I write
“The only purpose of peer review is to signal that at least one, two, three or four members of the professional community (peers) declare that they believe that the said work is valid. Validation by reproducibility is much more than this peer review practice. […]
Compared to peer review, which is only a social claim that somebody from the guild checked it, validation through reproducibility is much more, even if it does not provide means to absolute truths.”
There are several points to mention:
- the role of journals is irrelevant to anybody else than publishers and their fellow academic bureaucrats who work together to maintain this crooked system, for their own $ advantage.
- indeed, an article should give by itself the means to validate its content
- which means that the form of the article has to change from the paper version to a document which contains data, programs, everything which may help to validate the content written with words
- and the validation process (aka post review) has to be put on the par with the activity of writing articles, Even if an article comes with all means to validate it (like the process described in Reproducibility vs peer review ), the validation supposes work and by itself it is an activity akin to the one which is reported in the article. More than this, the validation may or may not function according to what the author of the work supposes, but in any case it leads to new scientific content.
In theory sounds great, but in practice it may be very difficult to provide a work with the means of validation (of course up to the external resources used in the work, like for example other works).
My answer is that: concretely it is possible to do this and I offer as example my article Molecular computers, which is published on github.io and it comes with a repository which contains all the means to confirm or refute what is written in the article.
The real problem is social. In such a system the bored researcher has to spend more than 10 min top to read an article he or she intends to use.
Then it is much easy, socially, to use the actual, unscientific system of replacing validation by authority arguments.
As well, the monkey system — you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours — which is behind most of the peer reviews (only think about the extreme specialisation of research which makes that almost surely a reviewer competes or collaborates with the author), well, that monkey system will no longer function.
This is even a bigger problem than the one that publishing and academic bean counting will soon be obsolete.
So my forecast is that we shall keep a mix of authority based (read “peer review”) and reproducibility (by validation), for some time.
The authority, though, will take another blow.
Which is in favour of research. It is also economically sound, if you think that probably today a majority of funding for research go to researchers whose work pass peer reviews, but not validation.