The hottest Peer Review Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top Education Topics

Can Anything Good Come from Gaza? How Western Science is Collapsing.

The Seneca Effect • 176 implied HN points • 11 Feb 24
🔬 Science Research Publication Peer Review Complex Systems
  1. The attempt to improve science by 'free-access publishing' has led to unintended consequences, like the proliferation of mediocre papers.
  2. The concentration of scientific power in a few elite institutions is not enough to drive innovation and creativity, mirroring the limitations faced by the Roman Empire.
  3. The collapse of science, exemplified by issues in scientific publishing, aligns with systemic collapses and may indicate the need for renewal through unconventional sources and unconventional ideas.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

eLife's Suppression of Science

A Biologist's Guide to Life • 51 implied HN points • 23 Feb 24
🔬 Science Peer Review Academic Publishing Research Ethics
  1. Peer review in the scientific community can be flawed, biased, and influenced by power dynamics, leading to the suppression of scientific findings.
  2. Scientific papers can face unfair rejection based on personal biases, conflicts of interest, and editorial decisions.
  3. The current scientific publishing system may hinder the open discussion and publication of research that challenges established beliefs or powerful stakeholders in the field.

Scientists Censoring Science

Unsafe Science • 97 implied HN points • 07 Dec 23
🔬 Science Censorship Academic Freedom Peer Review Research Ethics
  1. Censorship isn't just government-based, but also exists in various forms like corporate agreements and book bans.
  2. Rejection in science for not meeting standards isn't censorship - it's a common part of the scientific process.
  3. There is a rising trend of scientists facing punishment for their speech, leading to self-censorship and threats to academic freedom.

What does peer review know?

New Things Under the Sun • 160 implied HN points • 19 Apr 23
🔬 Science Peer Review
  1. Peer review is a common way to allocate scientific resources and has been shown to predict scientific impact.
  2. Studies have found a positive correlation between peer review scores and measures of research impact, such as publications and citations.
  3. The strength of the association between peer review scores and research impact may vary, but overall peer review can provide valuable insights into the potential impact of scientific work.

Can taste beat peer review?

New Things Under the Sun • 160 implied HN points • 24 Apr 23
🔬 Science Research Peer Review Decision-making Innovation
  1. Scientific peer review has its strengths, but it also has shortcomings like high costs and potential biases.
  2. Empowering individuals to make decisions on resource allocation can sometimes outperform peer review, especially for supporting less conventional or risky research projects.
  3. Studies show that editors can play a significant role in selecting high-impact or novel research papers, showcasing the importance of individual decision-makers in scientific publishing.

Science Funders, High-Risk Research, and Apple Pie

The Good Science Project • 33 implied HN points • 18 Jul 23
🔬 Science Funding Research Peer Review Innovation
  1. Science funding agencies struggle to fund truly high-risk projects due to the constraints of peer review processes.
  2. Agency staff may be hesitant to deviate from traditional practices, even if officially given the authority to do so.
  3. Well-intentioned programs for high-risk research can be underused due to organizational norms and resistance to change.

Interview: Jeffrey Marqusee (formerly a DOD research funder)

The Good Science Project • 29 implied HN points • 11 Jul 23
🔬 Science Research Technology Funding Peer Review Innovation
  1. Jeff Marqusee led research programs on environmental and energy issues at the Department of Defense.
  2. His program solicited and funded high-risk research proposals by setting aside specific funding and conducting internal reviews.
  3. An unintended experiment showed the importance of funding high-risk research and the limitations of peer review in making funding decisions.

Science and the Policy Response

Joshua Gans' Newsletter • 0 implied HN points • 13 Jan 21
🔬 Science Research Policy COVID-19 Peer Review Institutions
  1. Science heavily influenced policy-making during the Covid-19 pandemic, tracking the number of cases and playing a significant role in the global response.
  2. Recent research on Covid-19 had a substantial impact on policy-making and was highly cited by both policy-makers and other scientists.
  3. International governmental organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) played a key role in connecting policy to science, producing more impactful documents compared to national governments or think tanks.

Why are peer reviews private?

Joshua Gans' Newsletter • 0 implied HN points • 01 Mar 17
🔬 Science Peer Review Research Publications
  1. The current system of keeping journal article reviews private raises questions about potential benefits of making them public to improve efficiency and encourage more careful submissions.
  2. Authors might take more care in their papers if peer reviews were public, allowing for dialogue and counter arguments.
  3. While there are concerns about anonymity and potential pressure on reviewers, testing out the publication of reviews could help reduce costs and system delays in academic publishing.