korrents

korrents · piece

Peer review sucks, but it beats the alternative. So let's make it better

Suzana Herculano-Houzel · 25 Apr 2024

Read the piece on suzanaherculanohouzel.com ↗

2 korrents from this piece ↓

Suzana Herculano-Houzel did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

  1. Our reading

    Peer review is bad, but it beats the alternative of publishing research without it.

    Their wordsPeer review sucks—but it beats the alternative of not having our research go through Peer review as part of the publishing process.

  2. Our reading

    Authors should treat peer review as a test run before a select, hand-picked audience.

    Their wordsAuthors should think of the Peer review process as a test run with a carefully hand-picked, select public who is given the privilege of sitting there and reading the first version or watching the first screening of their work.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.