Samenvatting
Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. We conclude that on present evidence abolishing peer review weakly dominates the status quo.
Originele taal-2 | English |
---|---|
Pagina's (van-tot) | 635-663 |
Aantal pagina's | 29 |
Tijdschrift | British Journal for the Philosophy of Science |
Volume | 72 |
Nummer van het tijdschrift | 3 |
Vroegere onlinedatum | 16-mei-2020 |
DOI's | |
Status | Published - sep.-2021 |
Vingerafdruk
Duik in de onderzoeksthema's van 'Is Peer Review a Good Idea?'. Samen vormen ze een unieke vingerafdruk.Pers/Media
-
Ongekend Podcast Episode 4 - Is het meeste gepubliceerde onderzoek onwaar? (Remco Heesen)
Heesen, R.
21/09/2021
1 Mediabijdrage
Pers / media: Activiteiten met een maatschappelijk belang › Popular
-
Ipse Dixit Podcast episode 669 - Remco Heesen & Liam Bright on Peer Review
Heesen, R. & Bright, L. K.
18/12/2020
1 item van Media-aandacht
Pers / media: Activiteiten met een maatschappelijk belang › Academic
-
Dunkelmänner
Heesen, R. & Bright, L. K.
19/02/2020
1 item van Media-aandacht
Pers / media: Onderzoek › Popular
Prijzen
-
Understanding Statistical Biases in Peer Review
Heesen, R. (Recipient), 2018
Prijs: Fellowship awarded competitively › Academic
-
Organizing Science: The Social Epistemology of Scientists and their Incentives
Heesen, R. (Recipient), jul.-2016
Prijs: Fellowship awarded competitively › Academic