I don't think peer review is working particularly well for showcasing the best work in higher-ranking journals. I suspect there are common flaws in duplications of work, overstatements, etc. A small number of overworked reviewers with little immediate feedback will inevitably let things slip through - especially for more interdisciplinary papers, which have a broader range of things that might go wrong outside the reviewers' specialties.
Having a reviewer check work is terrible efficiency, now that typesetting programs allow for more intermediate steps to be easily incorporated, print page limitations are no longer an issue, and the background code can be bundled along with things. And papers should be "living" - corrected and updated continuously, rather than just in one early cut.
What do we need? Central storage repositories for projects that can be trusted to be long term resources as academics migrate from post to post or leave for different fields entirely. Filtering based on citations and references - what is actually used? The ability for social network style "liking" of papers if they explain things cleanly.
Go deeper - can we have people sign their names to checking a particular derivation, reproducing a result? Then there is public attribution of those who have checked things carefully and staked their names on it. "Liked" "Used" and "Reproduced" can all be done based on interest. Good work should rise by all three attributes.
Still useful are editors (professional as well as impromptu) to collect sets of "most interesting" papers in particular subjects and curate histories of topics. Most interesting are not necessarily the most recently created - new shifts in subject matter can bring renewed interest to decades-old work.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete