As a peer reviewed author, this is true 🫣
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Also published peer-reviewed stuff and... yeah, there are issues. IDK if I'd go so far as to call it a "scam" though... There needs to be some process to vet new knowledge claims against existing understanding. I've done this informally on Nostr with medical quacks, etc.
I think future systems of web of trust and/or prediction markets can really sort out a lot of this.
As for current systems, I think a lot of the issues are with institutional scientific research. Peer review winds up being either (a) a gatekeeping mechanism to keep out new and disruptive ideas, or (b) a "fig leaf" rubber stamp for good ole' boy Chums to get each other funding.
Because we don't have any other mechanism for evaluating the "goodness" of research and researchers than publications, the need to publish becomes an existential survival mechanism. Then, peer review becomes less about the quality of research, and more "who is this and are they worthy of funding?"
Yea, I love research but there are enough problems within the establishment that at this point I see the industry as largely captured which I find deeply disappointing.
The funding largely goes to whatever the federal level already approves of, or wants approved to cement their power. As such the public trust in these institutions is rapidly eroding. Becker talks about the capture of research funding a lot back in the 80s, with military and technology industries preventing any research into EMF dangers etc. This has gotten even worse, especially now with how the COVID vaccines were handled.
We need to radically reimagine how to verify proof of work on research, I think you're on to something with the web of trust. 💯