The "peer review" meme is damaging the scientific progress:
>Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
>>8066514
>psychology isn't science
You don't say...
>>8066514
Are you proposing we just let anyone publish whatever they want?
>>8066528
What if we limit criticism to technical details and let theories compete freely?
>>8066560
what you are proposing is basically just PLoS, which checks manuscripts for technical accuracy but doesn't sweat relevance, and publishes anything decently accurate that's sent in.
PLoS is widely regarded as a meme journal for this reason; after all, if it's actually interesting, it could probably be published elsewhere. also, this happened in a PLoS journal:
>http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146193
>The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.
>proper design by the Creator
>>8066514
hopefully people realize "climate science" is subject to this before it's too late.
>>8066560
I think if you have an idea, you should have to convince the community that they should care about it.
>>8066514
nice link there, thanks OP
>>8066514
meh, all the whiners will get their funding cut. The doers will get all the glory like they always have
>>8066690
It'll be as difficult as converting a religious person to atheism.
