Peer reviewing articles is like allowing someone to finish a marathon and then disqualify her-him because of a false start

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractScientific

Abstract

Three years of work, a fortune in research equipment, sleepless nights in the field, trying to keep everything working, months of analysing and writing to finally, at the finish line, hear that the whole idea of your precious research was flawed from the beginning. As a researcher I had multiple experiences where I wish I had the feedback from reviewers at the start, rather than at the end of my research. As a reviewer I read papers where I wished I could have warned the authors of a fatal flaw in their experimental design before they set out for the field. In this presentation I will rant at high speed about how the current form of peer review, originally well intended, has mutated into a grotesque monster that should be lovingly euthanized or, if it refuses, violently butchered. Not wanting to end on too dark a note, I will sketch how a newer, younger, less bitter, more helpful and beautiful incarnation of peer review could grow from the ashes of its former self.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberEGU2018-10793
Number of pages1
JournalGeophysical Research Abstracts (online)
Volume20
Publication statusPublished - 2018
EventEGU General Assembly 2018 - Vienna, Austria
Duration: 8 Apr 201813 Apr 2018
https://www.egu2018.eu/

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Peer reviewing articles is like allowing someone to finish a marathon and then disqualify her-him because of a false start'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this