To reduce unjustified requests for citation, Barnett suggests that reviewers should always state in their review comments when they recommend authors cite their work and why.
Or, now hear me out here, we scrap the entire horseshit system and replace it with one where "peer review" means peer reproduction of the results. Science doesn't care if your peers agree with it. It only cares if it works.
If a field is subjective enough to be controlled by peer review rather than actual results, then it isn't science, and they should stop being conflated.
I feel like we ought to have some sort of system in place where a significant number of scientists can go over previous experiments again and again (based upon what is most important to society currently) both to confirm the initial results, and also to flesh out the findings, perhaps even discovering new nuances which were missed originally.
People can complain that such research doesn't directly generate profits, but I would retort that avoiding the collapse of the entire system (which we are currently experiencing) is rather profitable.
So your complaint is that journals are situated at the wrong step in the verification process? Making your methodology and results public so that they can be independently reproduced isn't incorrect.
When the signal to noise ratio approaches zero due to "peer review" flooding the market with garbage, then I would argue that they are at the wrong step. They just make finding real breakthroughs into a search for a needle in a haystack.
Or, now hear me out here, we scrap the entire horseshit system and replace it with one where "peer review" means peer reproduction of the results. Science doesn't care if your peers agree with it. It only cares if it works.
If a field is subjective enough to be controlled by peer review rather than actual results, then it isn't science, and they should stop being conflated.
I feel like we ought to have some sort of system in place where a significant number of scientists can go over previous experiments again and again (based upon what is most important to society currently) both to confirm the initial results, and also to flesh out the findings, perhaps even discovering new nuances which were missed originally. People can complain that such research doesn't directly generate profits, but I would retort that avoiding the collapse of the entire system (which we are currently experiencing) is rather profitable.
Peer review is a junk science concept that was popularized to sell more science journal subscriptions.
So your complaint is that journals are situated at the wrong step in the verification process? Making your methodology and results public so that they can be independently reproduced isn't incorrect.
"can" being the operative word. Not "have" been reproduced, but "can" be reproduced. Posting it in a journal doesn't mean it will be reproduced.
Also, followup studies that don't support the initial finding are often rejected because the study contradicts peer-reviewed findings
I agree with this idea. We should debate the evidence, not the opinion.
When the signal to noise ratio approaches zero due to "peer review" flooding the market with garbage, then I would argue that they are at the wrong step. They just make finding real breakthroughs into a search for a needle in a haystack.