it's still a good idea in concept, but as implemented right now it's incredibly poor. as I've mentioned in other threads, the single biggest thing corrupting it is the current peer review system. the worth of a paper is not based on the ability to reproduce the findings, but rather its based on if a council of professors agree that the paper seems legit. this means the system inevitably falls to ideological capture.

it's still a good idea in concept, but as implemented right now it's incredibly poor. as I've mentioned in other threads, the single biggest thing corrupting it is the current peer review system. the worth of a paper is not based on the ability to reproduce the findings, but rather its based on if a council of professors agree that the paper seems legit. this means system inevitably falls to ideological capture.

it's still a good idea in concept, but as implemented right now it's incredibly poor. as I've mentioned in other threads, the single biggest thing corrupting it is the current peer review system. the worth of a paper is not based on the ability to reproduce the findings, but rather its based on if a council of professors agree that the paper seems legit. the system inevitably falls to ideological capture.