If only more academics had your style and originality, I might not have started passing years ago on all requests to review papers. It is indeed incredibly boring.
I'm in a scientific field, but thankfully my job success is not tied to publication quantity. In general, I love presenting and talking about my work in great detail but hate w…
If only more academics had your style and originality, I might not have started passing years ago on all requests to review papers. It is indeed incredibly boring.
I'm in a scientific field, but thankfully my job success is not tied to publication quantity. In general, I love presenting and talking about my work in great detail but hate writing papers, though I do it occasionally. That's my perspective as a "producer" of science.
As a "consumer" of science, I long ago gave up on keeping up with the literature in my field. If I tried, I'd have no time to do my actual job. It doesn't help that the vast majority of published papers represent minuscule progress at best, despite the typical overstated claims of originality in their introductions. At worst, they represent results of poorly designed experiments that do not measure what they claim to measure or do not support the claimed conclusions. So I must agree with you that as a method of quality control, peer review has failed. Whether or not peer review is replaced with something else, we have an excessive volume problem that requires a solution for scientists who want to stay current but can't spend hours and hours each week reading the literature.
If only more academics had your style and originality, I might not have started passing years ago on all requests to review papers. It is indeed incredibly boring.
I'm in a scientific field, but thankfully my job success is not tied to publication quantity. In general, I love presenting and talking about my work in great detail but hate writing papers, though I do it occasionally. That's my perspective as a "producer" of science.
As a "consumer" of science, I long ago gave up on keeping up with the literature in my field. If I tried, I'd have no time to do my actual job. It doesn't help that the vast majority of published papers represent minuscule progress at best, despite the typical overstated claims of originality in their introductions. At worst, they represent results of poorly designed experiments that do not measure what they claim to measure or do not support the claimed conclusions. So I must agree with you that as a method of quality control, peer review has failed. Whether or not peer review is replaced with something else, we have an excessive volume problem that requires a solution for scientists who want to stay current but can't spend hours and hours each week reading the literature.