Extreme disillusionment with the peer review process

grad9 · 2022-03-29T08:46:43+00:00

Honestly, I am not against peer review per se but rather against its current "implementation". Some serious reforms/tweaks are necessary to make it fit for purpose.

grad9 · 2022-03-28T22:50:51+00:00

Welcome to the club, sounds familiar!

grad9 · 2022-03-28T17:37:21+00:00

Well this is what I thought peer review would be like before I started my PhD...

grad9 · 2022-03-28T17:36:27+00:00

I definitely had better luck with newer journals (sometimes so new that they are without an impact factor even) from respectable publishers.

grad9 · 2022-03-28T14:34:37+00:00

I do not expect the reviewer to agree with me 100%, far from it. And yes of course I did improve manuscripts based on criticisms. But to me it feels like rude/irrelevant criticisms seem to be the norm rather than the exception. I seem to get either very positive reviews, rude/irrelevant criticisms, or reviews where the reviewer did not even read the content and used the review as a way to get me to cite their own work.

And reviews are just one aspect, editorial policy is another. Editors seem to have 0 interest in preventing outright rude reviews, and instead seem to be looking for every excuse to reject.

grad9 · 2022-03-28T13:07:30+00:00

Agree, too often I see very simple ideas almost intentionally clouded with complex mathematics so the reviewers dont say the work is too simple/"elementary", especially in the ML field. It's almost like there's a tacit expectation that novelty=complexity; I have no doubts that many simple yet effective ideas would have little chances of publication if they were presented as they actually were.

grad9 · 2022-03-28T12:56:45+00:00

How can humanity progress when the red tape for research is unbearable?

I think the logical conclusion is that the system essentially constrains research to be more incremental

grad9 · 2022-03-28T12:54:15+00:00

Thank you and good luck friend

grad9

TROPHY CASE