The hottest Peer Review Substack posts right now

And their main takeaways
Category
Top Education Topics

NIH Staff Revolt Promotes Propaganda about Diversity

Unsafe Science • 91 implied HN points • 11 Jun 25
🔬 Science Research Ethics Peer Review Social Science Policy Analysis
  1. Some NIH staff signed a declaration to object to Trump administration policies, especially regarding diversity in research funding. They believe these policies hurt scientific progress.
  2. The declaration claims that diverse research teams are essential for better outcomes. However, this claim has faced criticism for lacking strong evidence.
  3. Critics argue that many signatories may not be qualified to comment on social science issues since their expertise is primarily in STEM fields, which could undermine the credibility of their statements.

A Statistical Saga at a "Top" Journal

The Good Science Project • 122 implied HN points • 26 Jan 25
🔬 Science Research Statistics Publishing Peer Review Methodology
  1. Top scientific journals sometimes have trouble understanding basic statistics. This can lead to confusion and errors that affect research outcomes.
  2. A recent case showed that reviewing a paper could involve contradictory requests, like asking for a post-hoc power analysis, which is generally not helpful after results are already obtained.
  3. Researchers should not rely solely on journal editors for correct statistical advice. The system needs to improve how it addresses statistical issues in published studies.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

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.

Building the science factory with LLMs

The Counterfactual • 39 implied HN points • 13 Dec 23
🔬 Science Psychology Research Methods Cognitive Science Automation Peer Review
  1. Large Language Models (LLMs) could make scientific research faster and more efficient. They might help researchers come up with better hypotheses and analyze data more easily.
  2. Breaking down the research process into smaller parts might allow automation in areas like designing experiments and preparing stimuli. This could save time and improve the quality of research.
  3. While automating parts of scientific research can be helpful, it's important to ensure that human involvement remains, as fully automating the process could lead to lower-quality science.

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.

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.

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.

From Papyrus to Preprints

Reboot • 7 implied HN points • 08 Dec 24
🔬 Science Research Peer Review Publishing Science Policy
  1. Preprints are changing how research is shared. They allow scientists to share their findings quickly, before formal peer reviews, which helps speed up the conversation in the scientific community.
  2. The traditional peer review process can be slow and has limitations. Sometimes, important discoveries don’t get published because they don't fit the narrow criteria of journals.
  3. Platforms like arXiv have democratized access to research. They let everyone see new ideas and findings, but they also require us to be careful about the quality of information we trust.

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.

029: How to Read a Science Paper

Harnessing the Power of Nutrients • 19 implied HN points • 11 Mar 17
🚌 Education Reading Research Study Design Peer Review
  1. This episode provides guidance on how to read a science paper effectively, from developing good research questions to analyzing study design.
  2. Utilize resources like PubMed, Google Scholar, MeSH terms, and Sci-Hub to access full texts legally and efficiently.
  3. Understanding the anatomy of a science paper and the importance of critical analysis in interpreting research findings is crucial for beginners and advanced researchers alike.

The CRU Scandals: A Reflection on Academia

Musings on Markets • 0 implied HN points • 28 Nov 09
🚌 Education Research Ethics Peer Review Data Integrity Academia Research Peer Review Ethics Bias
  1. Academic research often prioritizes getting published over exploring interesting questions. Researchers might choose to work on safe topics that are easier to publish instead of tackling big, challenging ideas.
  2. Bias can affect research outcomes. Researchers bring their own perspectives and preconceptions, which can influence what they study and how they interpret data.
  3. The educational background and connections of a researcher can greatly impact their chances of getting published. Those from elite institutions or who have influential mentors often have better success in the publishing world.

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.

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.