korrents
José Luis Ricón

What José Luis Ricón thinks about peer review

@jose-luis-ricon · 8 positions · On ppll ↗

Engineer and writer at Nintil, where he has spent years reading the empirical literature on how science is funded and organised — grant peer review, funding lotteries, whether ideas are getting harder to find — and reporting what the evidence does and does not support.

José Luis Ricón did not write this page.

We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.

Filter peer review · Newest first
Topic
All 8metascience 3peer review 3innovation 2hiring 1optimism 1taste 1
Sort
NewestOldest

Only José Luis Ricón on peer review. See everyone on peer review

3 dated positions, 2021, in their own words. Our reading of what José Luis Ricón has said — not written or endorsed by them.

3 positions so far — this page is not yet offered to search engines.

  1. Our readingPre-grant peer review predicts which research will have impact substantially better than chance does.

    Their wordsI have reviewed before the effectiveness of peer review at figuring out "what's good" in the context of grant awards, finding that peer review as currently practiced does substantially better than chance at predicting future impact, especially for the most impactful of the papers; but at the same time is is far from perfect, leaving plenty of variance unexplained.

    ↗Fund people, not projects IV: Scientific egalitarianism and lotteriesnintil.com 1st of 3 in this piece

  3. Our readingReviewers can tell the obviously good from the obviously bad, but there is a messy middle where they cannot tell at all.

    Their wordsThe way I see this is that reviewers can identify what's obviously not great and what is obviously great (Perhaps identifying the latter is easier than the former). But there is a "messy middle" where it is unclear what to fund.

    ↗Fund people, not projects IV: Scientific egalitarianism and lotteriesnintil.com 2nd of 3 in this piece

  5. Our readingThe cost of grant peer review is dominated by the time researchers spend writing applications, not by the reviewing itself.

    Their wordsThe cost of peer review is largely dominated by applying for grants, not peer reviewing.

    ↗Fund people, not projects IV: Scientific egalitarianism and lotteriesnintil.com 3rd of 3 in this piece