CF Dictionary · Discourse & Debate
Peer Review (CF critique)
The traditional scientific publishing gatekeeping system. CF critiques it as private, biased, and inferior to open criticism.
Peer review is the traditional system in which experts evaluate scientific papers before publication. CF critiques it sharply.
CF's critiques
- Peer Review Is Worse than the Internet. Open online criticism is faster, broader, and less biased.
- Peer Review and Appeals to Authority. Reviewers are picked by editors, often based on status.
- Peer Review Does Private, Elite Gatekeeping. Reviews are secret; gatekeeping is opaque.
- Peer Review Lacks Transparency. You usually can't see the reviews.
- Ignoring Criticism and Peer Review. Authors can ignore reviewers with no consequences.
What CF recommends instead
- Paths Forward for criticism.
- Public forums for discussion.
- Idea trees for organisation.
- Public Peer Review.: Open review, open reviewers, open responses.
- Paths Forward Could Replace Some Peer Review.
What peer review gets right
- Filters some junk. Even biased filtering is better than none.
- Adds expert feedback. When reviewers are good.
- Provides certification. "Peer-reviewed" is a signal — but a noisy one.
The CF position
CF doesn't say peer review is worthless. It says peer review is worse than the internet for most purposes, and that Paths Forward-style open criticism should replace much of it. Private editing is fine; secret, anonymous filtering is not.
"Peer Review Is Worse than the Internet." — criticalfallibilism.com