Peer Review “Randomness” – A Case for Deliberation

Obviously, the process by which papers are accepted or rejected by peer reviewers is all to do with scientific quality and the scientific community is built around a common understanding of what that means. Or is it?

Advertisements

Pinker on Scientism

Contrary to Steven Pinker’s recent attempt to rehabilitate “scientism”, I argue that the word should stand for a persistent belief that the trustworthiness of institutionalised science is a matter of fact rather than something that needs to be subject to continuous empirical re-evaluation.

Is it already time for alt-alt-metrics?

Is it not time that science metrics shift their focus from what is worthy of attention to who has a good track record of solving problems and what information in the literature can be regarded as trustworthy because successful problem solvers have successfully relied upon it?