That paper was debunked as a result of the open peer review enabled by preprints! Its astonishing how many people miss that and assume that closed peer review even performs that function well in the first place. For the absolute top journals or those with really motivated editors closed peer review is good. However, often it's worse...way worse (i.e. reams of correct seeming and surface level research without proper methods or review of protocols).
The only advantage to closed peer review is it saves slight scientific embarrassment. However, this is a natural part of taking risks ofc and risky science is great.
P.s. in this case I really don't like the paper or methods. However, open peer review is good for science.
To your point the paper AFAIK wasn't debunked because someone read it carefully but because people tried to reproduce it. Peer reviews don't reproduce. I think we'd be better off with fewer peer reviews and more time spent actually reproducing results. That's why we had a while crisis named after that
> To your point the paper AFAIK wasn't debunked because someone read it carefully but because people tried to reproduce it.
Actually, from my recollection, it was debunked pretty quickly by people who read the paper because the paper was hot garbage. I saw someone point out that its graph of resistivity showed higher resistance than copper wire. It was no better than any of the other claimed room-temperature semiconductor papers that came out that year; it merely managed to catch virality on social media and therefore drove people to attempt to reproduce it.
Yes ofc! I guess the major distinction is closed versus open peer review. Having observed some abuses of the former I am inclined to the latter. Although if editors are good maybe it's not such a big difference. The superconducting stuff was more of a saga rather than a reasonable process of peer review too haha.
Yes and constantly obstructing communication is annoying and boring!
Imagine sitting listening to a lecture on quantum effects in biology or something similarly fascinating and someone in the audience obstructs because the lecturer said paetent not patent (or vice versa). Tediomania is awful..feel bad for those affected.
Anything over one dot communicates the idea effectively.. the difference between two or three dots is irrelevant...
Ellipses look like squares.........
Close up they are circles....
That’s not true. With two dots, it can as plausibly be a typo of a single dot. In fact, in your GP post I was assuming that you hit the dot key a second time instead of the space key by mistake, and ignored the resulting lack of auto-capitalization. (Granted, the fact that ellipses are usually separated by a space from what follows also played a role.)
Norway seems to be doing fantastically well..if anything the reviewed book is guilty of a kind of rich-person luxurious complaining (over minor difficulties).
"Oystein Olsen, a former head of Norway’s central bank, said Bech Holte’s work is riddled with inaccuracies, including overstating the extent of the slowdown in productivity. Researchers at Norway’s Statistics Office said the book presents a deeply flawed version of economic history and pointed out that Norway is a small country, greatly influenced by external factors."
This is a very misleading narrative. Wikipedia is now a popularity contest and subject to commercial pressures. As Larry Sanger (co-founder of wikipedia) noted:
"Wikipedia lacks the habit or tradition of respect for expertise. As a community, far from being elitist ..., it is anti-elitist (which, in this context, means that expertise is not accorded any special respect, and snubs and disrespect of expertise is tolerated)."
Compare it with scholarpedia which is expert edited and of a much higher quality (although in a much narrower domain).
And is very much the refuge of the rules lawyer, and those who can be more stubborn than you.
Not to mention all the unofficial backchannels and grifting and such, denied until caught out ("I'm about to make a troublesome edit. Have my back and police anyone who interferes.")
There's nothing better with a similar scope. Improving Wikipedia is a worthy goal but any criticism that doesn't recognize its uniquely useful place does more harm than good.
Wikipedia is a poor source of any information that concerns politics, philosophy, history, and partly economics, because its editors actively resist any sources or opinions that they deem right wing or conservative. There is a massive amount of lying by omission.
Microbial fuel cells have been researched for quite a while. Its a brilliant idea but within an incredibly competitive technology space (e.g. lithium, etc). Living materials also die or work differently each time they are implemented (e.g. see issues with device to device variation in neural organoid sensors for chemicals/"chemical noses").
The only advantage to closed peer review is it saves slight scientific embarrassment. However, this is a natural part of taking risks ofc and risky science is great.
P.s. in this case I really don't like the paper or methods. However, open peer review is good for science.
reply