Talk:Scholarly peer review

Clarification needed
I moved the following section to here, because before reinsertion I think it needs clarification regarding what an "invited paper" is in this sense, and what component of the process (simply absence of peer review?) makes it more "valuable". Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.

Result-blind peer review section
Thanks for the |recent 10K addition of Result-blind peer review,. I find numerous issues with it unfortunately.

I think that these types of peer review should be added more carefully and critically, with time context and why some journals never went beyond piloting.

I have flagged basically ALL refs, which may be unstable / linkrot susceptible without complete citation and without archiving.

Adding inline external links is a no-no on WP.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think result-blind peer review is an excellent addition. It is a commonly proposed solution to a major problem in peer review, which has been independently reinvented a number of times over the past half-century, and which has gotten quite a bit of press attention since 2013 in the form of 'registered reports'. I could easily have added in another half-dozen media articles or journal editorials on it, but I felt I had dug up more than enough references to satisfy anyone about the notability.
 * As for the references, the title & author is enough to refind the papers easily, not to mention the fulltexts, but if you want to go through and add the appropriate citation templates, that'd be great.
 * Incidentally, you are incorrect about the external link. At least, as long as I've been editing, since 2004, it's always been acceptable to link inline an official page like OSF's Registered Reports page, and checking WP:EL, I don't see that that's ever changed. However, I don't want to make a fuss about it, so I've restored it as a reference. --Gwern (contribs) 04:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

nice read
not sure where to add summary... 212.200.65.108 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Suppression of dissent
I have tagged two sources as potentially unreliable. Fringe proponents do complain about peer review but the process effectively prevents them from corrupting science, making their claims akin to conspiracy theories. It is legitimate for mainstream journals to reject disproven claims of links between vaccines and autism. — Paleo Neonate  – 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I removed three sources of questionable reliability that also had a conflict of interest about pushing fringe science and reworded a sentence to reflect extant sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your changes look good to me. The text removed here might be salvageable, but it's been unsourced for so long that cutting it was a reasonable course of action. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection if that part was restored (also not related to the sources I mentioned). — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writ 2 - Academic Writing
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)