Tap a claim on the ring to put it at the centre.
← Gatekeeping in science stamps out the best research along with the…
8 connected korrents · 5 moments on record from 8 Jan 2021 to 11 Apr 2023.
Everything filed under peer review
peer review Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Same subject Read this korrent: Gatekeeping in science stamps out the best research along with the worst, because reviewers are least likely to approve what is novel or risky. Gatekeeping in science stamps out the best research along with the worst, because reviewers are least likely to approve what is novel or risky. Last stated 3 years ago
11 Apr 2023
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2023-04-11 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Needing a reviewer's approval before an idea counts for anything makes scientists worse at thinking, and costs the field its most unusual ideas. — tap to centre the map on it Needing a reviewer's approval before an idea counts for anything makes scientists worse at thinking, and costs the field its most unusual ideas. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Peer reviewers miss most of the serious errors in the papers they review. — tap to centre the map on it Peer reviewers miss most of the serious errors in the papers they review. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Good scientists can be shortlisted from their publication record, leaving human reviewers only the job of choosing among them. — tap to centre the map on it Good scientists can be shortlisted from their publication record, leaving human reviewers only the job of choosing among them. Last stated 6 years ago
8 Jan 2021
JR
José Luis Ricón — holds since 2021-01-08 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Pre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does. — tap to centre the map on it Pre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does. Last stated 6 years ago
20 Jan 2021
JR
José Luis Ricón — holds since 2021-01-20 — tap for who they are
Same subject: A scientific paper should not be built around a take-home message, because that invites cherry-picking and hiding the results that did not fit. — tap to centre the map on it A scientific paper should not be built around a take-home message, because that invites cherry-picking and hiding the results that did not fit. Last stated 4 years ago
27 Dec 2022
SR
Stuart Ritchie — holds since 2022-12-27 — tap for who they are
Same subject: The demands of peer reviewers push scientists into producing bad research. — tap to centre the map on it The demands of peer reviewers push scientists into producing bad research. Last stated 4 years ago
13 Dec 2022
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2022-12-13 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Reviewers can tell the obviously good from the obviously bad, but there is a messy middle where they cannot tell at all. — tap to centre the map on it Reviewers can tell the obviously good from the obviously bad, but there is a messy middle where they cannot tell at all. Last stated 6 years ago
20 Jan 2021
JR
José Luis Ricón — holds since 2021-01-20 — tap for who they are
Same subject: Science is a strong-link problem: what it amounts to depends on how good the best work is, not on how bad the worst is. — tap to centre the map on it Science is a strong-link problem: what it amounts to depends on how good the best work is, not on how bad the worst is. Last stated 3 years ago
11 Apr 2023
AM
Adam Mastroianni — holds since 2023-04-11 — tap for who they are