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.
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.