The Rise And Fall Of Peer Review

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 10 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 23

  • @anjusuri432
    @anjusuri432 Год назад +1

    These are the kinds of topics that should be shown on TV everyday. They have a huge impact on societies and ultimately policy decisions and the very functioning of nations.

  • @mollyv4908
    @mollyv4908 Год назад +4

    What a wonderful discussion. You are pushing the envelope here. Do not get disheartened by the level of engagement.. This was a avery important topic and little by little everyone will get these topics.

  • @acharyakunal8467
    @acharyakunal8467 Год назад +1

    I read a book by Thomas Kuhn "Structure of Scientific Revolution " where it was said that the Science progress has not been linear pretty much in contrary to popular perception. I can connect to one aspect of the author where he talked about letting more people experiment with the idea of reviewing so that the best version comes out. I can relate to this proposal because most of the things that have changes human history have been Black Swans and not planned ventures.
    I have been following kushal Sir since 2017 and have been impressed with his quest of Truth and his vivacious reading habits...

  • @pankeruha
    @pankeruha Год назад +4

    A very timely topic indeed. There was a time when I mentored young kids on writing research papers and about referencing peer reviewed articles. Nowadays I am cynical.

  • @lawanyaarvind2810
    @lawanyaarvind2810 Год назад +5

    What a revelation this podcast is

  • @DiatomAlgae
    @DiatomAlgae Год назад +1

    Thanks for the excellent topic. I have read many Peer Reviewed Papers with fundamental errors and we are actually suffering due to these errors.
    The main problem is that there is no formal process by which anyone can point out errors in published papers. We can just email the author and co-authors or publisher or editors, etc. They are NOT bound to respond.
    We need a FORMAL system of continuous review of papers by any reader.
    Publishers must have a compelled to have a Comments page on their website and
    they would be obliged to respond to any comments and questions about each paper.

  • @Rohit-cq7vm
    @Rohit-cq7vm Год назад +3

    It's a good discussion, finding the truth is not easy.
    Also he is right we are getting so much information everyday not everything is useful & they are just distractions.
    Also agree No need to listen the news becoz an event is hyped for today but after one week it doesn't matter.

  • @vijay-1
    @vijay-1 Год назад

    Excellent analysis

  • @rohandante
    @rohandante Год назад +1

    Nice eye opening.

  • @yugopal
    @yugopal Год назад +2

    Dear kushal you got few good comments from a really experienced Doctor of Psychology

  • @Roar1921
    @Roar1921 Год назад +2

    I wonder whether Tribalism is ever going to go. It was always there and may never go. This is exactly what happened to the best researched practices of the ancients too. Humans and time diluted their intentions and the practices. We may have to just keep trying to get our personal practices in sync with what we think is closest to our ethical and scientific sensibilities

  • @Roar1921
    @Roar1921 Год назад +2

    "Academics are really hierarchical" - sounds like what happened with the knowledgeable class in our varna system. Again it is proof, that these things will keep happening in different ways. Hierarchies..

  • @mollyv4908
    @mollyv4908 Год назад +1

    Get Razib Khan too on the anthrpological and genetic roots of the Aryan invasion theory . Does he debunk it?

  • @CobaltContrast
    @CobaltContrast 10 месяцев назад

    17:04 false dichotomy

  • @s-aa-ng-ee-2081
    @s-aa-ng-ee-2081 Год назад +1

    what can we possibly do to make the Indian public a hub of peer review?
    it can be a placebo to increase the country's scientific temper.

  • @zoomer619
    @zoomer619 Год назад +1

    The Sokal hoax, was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies-whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross-[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."
    Copied from wikipedia

    • @zoomer619
      @zoomer619 Год назад

      The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the journal's spring/summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. The journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.
      The hoax caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; and academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors or readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had abided by proper scientific ethics.

  • @Adiishresthaaa
    @Adiishresthaaa Год назад +3

    Hum first , hmm first

  • @ra1n_
    @ra1n_ Год назад +1

    Why did my guy have to overact so much in this podcast, It's sort of surreal.

  • @believeroflight9888
    @believeroflight9888 Год назад +1

    ye kya narcissist logo lagaya hai