Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_iyd4lq8 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

EconomistPunter t1_iyd5dw8 wrote

Such a weird dichotomy. I have 2 COVID era papers; one was published after 8 months with a 21 page revision. Another is still under review at its 3rd journal.

I would imagine name recognition plays some role (if you couldn’t figure it out I don’t have it) but my experience certainly wasn’t of a faster process. Instead, it was more thorough than regular review.

3

MrSpotgold t1_iyd63xy wrote

I reviewed a paper for a Q1 journal about COVID19 and had serious issues with it. Paper was published anyway, and now I use it as an example of bad practice in my lectures. Oh, and I will never review for that journal in my life.

24

ExtonGuy t1_iyd6tjb wrote

Tell me that this study isn’t going to be retracted …

−2

DJKGinHD t1_iyd8xq6 wrote

Adam Ruins Everything did a podcast episode on the peer review process and how flawed it is. That was like 10 years ago, though. Apparently, things didn't change, yet.

2

Banea-Vaedr t1_iydfka3 wrote

You know something is wrong in science when 90% of studies cannot be replicated.

−1

Fomentor t1_iydsc66 wrote

Basically, capitalism is ruining science. The pressure to publish and to have results that support your hypothesis incentivizes people to cheat. Should we be surprised?

−4