Peer review used to be running your work by a very well educated, perceptive group of experts in the subjects covered in the article, to catch glaring omissions, careless mistakes, subtle things you may have missed, opportunities for improving or testing the argument.
Nowadays, they appear to be an opportunity for the Keepers of the Official Narrative (The High Church Censors) to scan for anything that might negatively affect their patrons and apply some credible language as an excuse to block it. Maybe that's an unfair generalization, but it has certainly been applied in the current pandemic and in several other areas I've read about, especially in areas in which food & drug corporations fund the institutions.
Dec 12, 2022·edited Dec 12, 2022Liked by Jean Marc Benoit MD
Oh, also, an organic chem professor of mine (years ago) said -- as he was writing a long reaction sequence on the board in front of a large lecture hall full of students -- that he counted on the "collective genius" of the over 300 students attending to catch any mistakes he might have made.
One might consider the tens of thousands that might see your social media-published work could provide the same service. A LOT of people with different educations and experiences noticing things you might have missed. But without the lab coats and mandate from on high.
In high school biology the term "hybrid vigor" took root in my mind and soul - the notion that interactions between slightly different species made strong offspring. In academe, the "echo chamber" effect can be pretty stifling - a human behavioural equivalent of "monoculture" - where a single virus can wipe out the entire crop. I.e. not a very resilient social structure.
An organic chem story from Professor Wulfman, may he rest in peace: he was hired to examine a chemical plant that was losing money and couldn't figure out why. Walked the grounds and noticed a dripping pipe. Counted the drip rate and traced the pipe to figure out what it was carrying. Turns out that dripping pipe was costing millions of dollars in lost product.
Looking back, I suspect he told that story to illustrate that really important details can sometimes be so obvious that the "smart people" completely miss them..
Fauchi hit man Kristian anderson has been quoted in meetings of offers to delete submissions off of pre print servers so it seems like a pretty broken process anyways
Peer review used to be running your work by a very well educated, perceptive group of experts in the subjects covered in the article, to catch glaring omissions, careless mistakes, subtle things you may have missed, opportunities for improving or testing the argument.
Nowadays, they appear to be an opportunity for the Keepers of the Official Narrative (The High Church Censors) to scan for anything that might negatively affect their patrons and apply some credible language as an excuse to block it. Maybe that's an unfair generalization, but it has certainly been applied in the current pandemic and in several other areas I've read about, especially in areas in which food & drug corporations fund the institutions.
Oh, also, an organic chem professor of mine (years ago) said -- as he was writing a long reaction sequence on the board in front of a large lecture hall full of students -- that he counted on the "collective genius" of the over 300 students attending to catch any mistakes he might have made.
One might consider the tens of thousands that might see your social media-published work could provide the same service. A LOT of people with different educations and experiences noticing things you might have missed. But without the lab coats and mandate from on high.
In high school biology the term "hybrid vigor" took root in my mind and soul - the notion that interactions between slightly different species made strong offspring. In academe, the "echo chamber" effect can be pretty stifling - a human behavioural equivalent of "monoculture" - where a single virus can wipe out the entire crop. I.e. not a very resilient social structure.
An organic chem story from Professor Wulfman, may he rest in peace: he was hired to examine a chemical plant that was losing money and couldn't figure out why. Walked the grounds and noticed a dripping pipe. Counted the drip rate and traced the pipe to figure out what it was carrying. Turns out that dripping pipe was costing millions of dollars in lost product.
Looking back, I suspect he told that story to illustrate that really important details can sometimes be so obvious that the "smart people" completely miss them..
Fauchi hit man Kristian anderson has been quoted in meetings of offers to delete submissions off of pre print servers so it seems like a pretty broken process anyways
Thank you - thank you! Peer Reviewed is code for coercion!