stakesinscience

Health Nerd on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 17, 2020, from https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1316511734115385344

Clements, J. C. (2020). Don’t be a prig in peer review. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02512-0

Michael Eisen on Twitter: “A core problem in science publishing today is that we have a system where the complex, multidimensional assessment of the rigor, validity, utility, audience and impact of a work that emerges from peer review gets reduced to a single overvalued ‘accept/reject’ decision.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1291752487448276992

Peer review should be an honest, but collegial, conversation. (2020). Nature, 582(7812), 314–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01622-z

Heathers, J. (2020, May 21). Preprints Aren’t The Problem—WE Are The Problem. Medium. https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/preprints-arent-the-problem-we-are-the-problem-75d29a317625

Fish, Stanley. 1988. “Guest Column: No Bias, No Merit: The Case against Blind Submission.” PMLA 103 (5): 739–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/462513.

An interesting essay in the context I'm reading it (alongside Foucault's What is an author in preparation for a discussion of scientific authorship.

Among the interesting things about it are the way it encapsulates a distinction between the humanities and sciences in method (though Fish doesn't see it and it comes back to bite him in the Sokol affair). What Frye thinks is important because he is an author-function in Foucault's terms, I.e. a discourse initiator to whom we return for new insight.

Fish cites Peters and Ceci 1982 on peer review, and sides with those who argue that ethos should count in review of science as well.

Also interesting for an illustration of how much the field changed, from new criticism in the 1970s (when the first draft was written) until "now" i.e. 1989 when political criticism is the norm.