Post #1331570
2026-02-03 17:11 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org 2026-02-03 17:21
@zackbatist I think I disagree with you a little. I feel like the narrative that we had fooled ourselves into thinking that peer review is a sufficient quality indicator is at odds with my experience as an academic. I think everyone has always been able to think of published papers that they thought were not worth the paper they were printed on… but I think also that peer review had in implicit line it was trying to maintain: reject obvious nonsense while leaving for the subsequent literature to sort out problem papers that themselves required intelligent/detailed argument to reject. even that line was porous, but scale now makes it totally untenable
-
@UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org 2026-02-03 17:26
@zackbatist so I do think scale is the real issue here (and one we were already chasing without much success before LLMs….), and think that, unfortunately, every single “solution” I can envision for dealing with this problem is going to end up doubling down on the very things we wanted to eliminate with publishing reform… I hope I’m wrong…