I have basically given up on trusting any journal or any peer review process. You have to read the article for yourself, sadly, as peer review can be absolute garbage in many instances, as all of us are so busy with so many other tasks. Just sad that journals still are the major gatekeeper.
Reposted from
Richard Sever
I reviewed a paper recently. It was flawed & rejected. It later appeared unchanged in another journal.
So how is peer review a “gold standard”?
You can’t have a gold standard if people can’t tell the difference between gold and bauxite..
So how is peer review a “gold standard”?
You can’t have a gold standard if people can’t tell the difference between gold and bauxite..
Comments