The Authoritarian View of Knowledge: Peer Review

Donate:




Social Media:




=== Time Stamps:

5:55 - Big vs. Small Journals

11:51 - Judging Methodology Based on Conclusions

15:59 - BMJ Study on Error Identification Rate

17:37 - Prestige and Paper Acceptance

22:59 - Inter-Rate Reliability

24:17 - Does "Peer Review" CAUSE Studies to be Better Done?

26:58 - A HOT TAKE on "Peer Review"

Sources:

1. Reviewer Bias, Annals of Internal Medicine:


2. Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making:


3. Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewer's Recommendations and Editorial Decisions:


4. Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance:


5. Double-Blind Peer Review Failure Rate:



6. Are Road Safety Evaluation Studies Published in Peer Reviewed Journals More Valid than Similar Studies not Published in Peer Reviewd Journals:


7. A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multileval Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants:


8. Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability:


9. Confirmational Response Bias Among Social Work Journals:


10. Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review:


11. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?


12. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index


13. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

Peer Review,Journals,Replication Crisis,Lancet,BMJ,Nature,