Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Firebird" data-source="post: 9687257" data-attributes="member: 7015803">I don't have your experience with the trial so I will trust your results there. But in general I think these issues speak more to a mismatch in expectations than failure of concept.Archiving comments properly is a technical concern and solvable.As for the readers looking at just the abstract (and, I assume, trusting it) -- frankly, that is an issue even if the research is peer reviewed. The replication crisis, not to mention the outright fraud crisis, is fully exposed at this point. I'm not sure what use case you imagine -- is it doctors reading the abstracts and then treating patients based on this? That would speak to a need for an intermediary between research and clinic (like UpToDate) even with peer review.Or if it is researchers just reading the abstract, for purposes other than evaluating if they should read further or not...then I am not sure I trust their scholarship.But yes, under a "public post, public comment" regime, abstracts are going to be less trustworthy. I think this is a good thing, not a bad thing, because it means people stop trusting things they ought not to trust just because it has the peer review stamp.Another way to phrase it is--peer review is designed to strengthen the "<a href="https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review" target="_blank">weakest link</a>", the weakest papers. But peer review isn't an effective tool to prevent them, and can make weak links look strong because they have a seal of approval. In a more public regime, the job of vetting and compiling all this information for end users who don't want to read the papers can be done systematically rather than by ad hoc committees.Unfortunately I am not sure you can capture how the dynamics will shift with a pilot study, because it (hopefully) will lead to a cultural shift in how practicioners engage with scientific papers. But that cultural shift is desirable anyway.</blockquote>

Verification