Forgive me for being a slow learner, but I just realized that the famous "peer review", which seems to be a sacrosanct rule in science (let yet not afraid to question the rules, otherwise we will make measures, and not science!) puts scientists in a difficult position: they are both judges and parties!
other hand, it seems difficult to evaluate work by non-specialists, who may miss the benefit of the proposed work.
So what should we change?
- abandon the principle that there should not be judge and jury?
- abandon the trial by peers?
Since I posed the question, we often oppose the question "but how would you do differently?"
A question I hate, because it would block any thinking, inventiveness, to solve the problem.
Let us not intellectually lazy: spend a little time to search for feasible solutions!
0 comments:
Post a Comment