@AmreiBahr @JCzierpka Solchen Agenten-basierten Modellen bieten interessante Einsichten: "We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees is sufficient to drastically lower the quality of the published (accepted) scientific stand
And returning to the problem of Reviewer 2. S. Thurner, R. Hanel. 2011. Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: toward selection of the average. The European Physical Journal B. 84:707–711. https://t.co/CrveRzQTip. https://t.co/ZXRrVSoVZf
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
@DrLutzBoehm Yep, I think what the academic grant distribution system is causing is best described as this: "Peer-review in a world with rational scientists: Toward selection of the average" https://t.co/5Roi6x9jBH
And @trishgreenhalgh here is the peer reviewed version of the paper. Essentially, a small number of rational referees can degrade the quality of scientific work. The number of retracted papers suggest this is a real problem. https://t.co/d97Av6oz9E
So much for peer-review! https://t.co/3oSllaplcH "a simple quality-increasing policy of e.g. a journal can lead to a loss in overall scientific quality, and mutual support-networks of authors and referees can deteriorate the system."
@RaphaelWimmer @epistatcadarn @hb_cell @MicrobiomDigest Not sure about evidence regarding this specific claim but there is more & more interesting science on peer review: https://t.co/5Roi6x9jBH https://t.co/FDSK3qV2V0 https://t.co/s6cyj1zUD9
@Lab_Journal @c_drosten Generell ja, aber sind wir uns sicher, dass Peer-Review der beste Qualitätssicherungsmechanismus ist? https://t.co/TJYJqhZLo9 https://t.co/5Roi6x9jBH Ist Peer-Review replizierbar? https://t.co/i2dGJ6Id2h Die Zeit das Wissenschaf
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
Agree with this argument, and had proposed something similar in 2014 https://t.co/p5UC5vCXw4
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
RT @KirkegaardEmil: For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. May…
For most of scientific history, there was no peer review in current fashion, or most, just a quick editor judgment. Maybe this is a superior approach as the time to publication is heavily reduced and there are fewer potentially biased gatekeepers. https:/
RT @jonbratseth: Technological solutions to problems embedded in human institutions often fails, but here I feel it could actually work. So…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @ebgoldstein: @Protohedgehog exactly the behavior encoded in the Thurner and Hanel 2010 peer review model paper !! https://t.co/U81yjsns…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
Technological solutions to problems embedded in human institutions often fails, but here I feel it could actually work. Something like "github for papers", which subverts the current system less by its system-wide properties and more by simply being more a
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @ebgoldstein: @Protohedgehog exactly the behavior encoded in the Thurner and Hanel 2010 peer review model paper !! https://t.co/U81yjsns…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
Peer-review, che fare? due articoli su aspetti critici e possibili sviluppi: 1-Thurner & Hanel: "We find that a small fraction of incorrect (selfish or rational) referees is sufficient to drastically lower the quality of the published scientific standa
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
Depressing.
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
RT @Protohedgehog: Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to t…
Interesting study: It only takes a small fraction of nepotistic or selfish reviewers to lower peer review standards to that expected by pure chance. https://t.co/KfqqtsbpHF I'm convinced more than ever that PR needs to become more openly collaborative htt
@Protohedgehog exactly the behavior encoded in the Thurner and Hanel 2010 peer review model paper !! https://t.co/U81yjsnsAH
RT @yoginho: Must read for new @EMBO_YIP: https://t.co/4xtSGSdDYF Shows crony clubs lower overall publication quality while boosting succes…
by the "rational" peers (reviewers) https://t.co/4cxq4lJZyC https://t.co/UOsn8r39fx
What is the effect of less than optimum peer-review process on the selection of high quality #science? #academics👎 target="_blank" href="https://t.co/iNjGMv8FNH">https://t.co/iNjGMv8FNH
Agent-based model of peer review: assholes, nepotism & misguided journal policies completely annihilate benefits... https://t.co/wUDLu6XkuQ
RT @sanli: "even small fractions of rational referees bring down the system to select papers of close to average quality." https://t.co/6VB…
"even small fractions of rational referees bring down the system to select papers of close to average quality." https://t.co/6VB9czrCmz
Mutual support-networks of authors and selfish referees drastically deteriorate peer review process http://t.co/BjWGgDyd #arxiv #peerreview
Computational model of peer review shows just a few bad reviewers bring the whole system down http://t.co/AP0shMTq #fixthesystem
Survival of the average: peer review breaks down if only a few peers act selfish, social simulations show. http://t.co/H9n7TQJb
RT @Villavelius: "Rational" peer review examined: http://t.co/kHovWmx
RT @Villavelius: "Rational" peer review examined: http://t.co/kHovWmx