> Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.
I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that:
> The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.
> Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views.
> I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review.
Even if that were true, what does the historical development of these institutions have to do with the claim that contemporary peer review is responsible for the contemporary replication crisis?
Yeah I obviously am taking about the peer reviewed journal not peer review as a concept (which is how this discussion started). ~~But it does look like tenure is after journals not before.~~ Correction: peer review as we know of began in the mid 1970s, so tenure precedes the modern peer review system.
> Um, no. Tenure decisions turn largely on publication record, which turns on peer review.
I'm pretty sure your parent meant that the concept of tenure precedes the concept of peer review. However, this too seems to be false, according to the repository of truth, Wikipedia, which says that:
> The first record of an editorial pre-publication peer-review is from 1665 by Henry Oldenburg, the founding editor of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society at the Royal Society of London.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review) but:
> Tenure was introduced into American universities in the early 1900s in part to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of faculty members who expressed unpopular views.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_tenure).