alt Hacker NewsThis is amazing. The trust of peer review as a stamp of quality among academics is dwindling, and distrust of science among the population is growing (within the increasing politicisation of some areas of research). Transparent peer review raises the bar for both academics and enhances the potential trust in the process.
This is desperately needed as AI could further deteriorate the quality of science if the publishing process is not made more strict. This represents a significant step forward in rigorous science. I hope other publications follow suit.
Replies
> The trust of peer review as a stamp of quality among academics is dwindling
The thing is, peer review is not a stamp of quality, and never was. It is just the basic level of due diligence. The referees cannot reproduce the results most of the time for a lot of very good reasons. They are here as a sanity check, to ensure that the work avoided common pitfalls and actually makes sense.
What most people do not understand is that articles are not good because they are peer-reviewed; it’s the lack of peer review that is a red flag. Amongst reviewed articles, a lot of them will turn out to be wrong or flawed in ways that are impossible for the reviewers to find out.
>and enhances the potential trust in the process.
I highly doubt it's a meaningful factor in public trust.
The general public does not distrust science because peer reviews are not public.
Of the people who distrust science, how many of them have ever read a scientific paper?
I suspect the number is low. If that's the case, they're unlikely to be more convinced by the presence of published peer review, either.