Sure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse.
The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could.
Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.
You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology.
Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.
Comments
Wait till tomorrow when there will be a new not peer reviewed paper stating the contrary. [edit:grammar]
Sure, but you really think peer review would solve any of that? It would only make things move 1000x slower and be worse.
The current "free-market" process of replication attempts is going to resolve the issue both quicker and with more statistical significance than peer-review ever could.
Perhaps this isn't what you're implying, but the peer-review word in your comment jumped out to me, as if that changes anything.
You can't take a dozen lousy studies and put them together to get better statistical significance than a single well-designed study. If the methodology of a study is bad, the results have to be scrapped entirely, and peer review is supposed to be the process through which we filter out bad methodology.
Without peer review we don't know which studies to eliminate from our informal meta-analysis, which means we can't come to any conclusions about the data.
Peer review _is_ a free market solution to the problem of incorrect research.
lol, and now it's not tomorrow, it's today
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37043447