> I wouldn't say peer review is useless, I think it did improve papers I wrote a little
Let's get back to basics here. What is the whole point of doing things scientifically in the first place? I.e. what is so special about the combination of 1) communicable descriptions of experiments, which can be re-run by anybody, and 2) the performing of said experiments and reporting the results, and 3) having others review and reproduce the results?
Why are those 3 practices soooo special? Its because they are designed to either a) persuade everybody to agreement with you that your results are valid, or b) persuade you that you are wrong.
I.e.. the scientific method is uniquely designed for the purpose of compelling agreement among peers. Its the 2nd best method we have of reaching consensus (the first best being the methods of proof used in mathematics. )
This is important because even if you make a new gee-whiz discovery, its useless unless other people agree that it is real. And unlike politics, or a beauty contest, or an aristocracy, it doesn't matter who you are, if your results are observable and reproducible, other scientists will agree with you, and your discovery has some chance of being generally useful. And that's why they are anonymous--its supposed to cut through the biases and prejudices which, alas, sometimes prevent us from coming to consensus.
The point of peer review is to get a read on whether or not the author of the paper has justified their claims in enough detail that the results are likely to compile agreement. Yeah, we see if 3 or 4 people can agree on it, before asking everybody to agree on it. Whoda thunk?
Point being, peer review isn't to help you improve your paper.
> reviewers do not put enough effort into to reliably catch validity problems.
Yes. This. Any why don't they? Because there's only so much work you can expect somebody to do for free. Lets pay them.
Let's get back to basics here. What is the whole point of doing things scientifically in the first place? I.e. what is so special about the combination of 1) communicable descriptions of experiments, which can be re-run by anybody, and 2) the performing of said experiments and reporting the results, and 3) having others review and reproduce the results?
Why are those 3 practices soooo special? Its because they are designed to either a) persuade everybody to agreement with you that your results are valid, or b) persuade you that you are wrong.
I.e.. the scientific method is uniquely designed for the purpose of compelling agreement among peers. Its the 2nd best method we have of reaching consensus (the first best being the methods of proof used in mathematics. )
This is important because even if you make a new gee-whiz discovery, its useless unless other people agree that it is real. And unlike politics, or a beauty contest, or an aristocracy, it doesn't matter who you are, if your results are observable and reproducible, other scientists will agree with you, and your discovery has some chance of being generally useful. And that's why they are anonymous--its supposed to cut through the biases and prejudices which, alas, sometimes prevent us from coming to consensus.
The point of peer review is to get a read on whether or not the author of the paper has justified their claims in enough detail that the results are likely to compile agreement. Yeah, we see if 3 or 4 people can agree on it, before asking everybody to agree on it. Whoda thunk?
Point being, peer review isn't to help you improve your paper.
> reviewers do not put enough effort into to reliably catch validity problems.
Yes. This. Any why don't they? Because there's only so much work you can expect somebody to do for free. Lets pay them.