评论详情页
杨正瓴
赞
+1
赞
+1
“你就是那大树，他们就是那婆娑的影子，你不能时时刻刻都顾影自怜啊？不用担心，要相信光的速度！”
你就是那大树，
他们就是那婆娑的影子，
你不能时时刻刻都顾影自怜啊？
不用担心，
要相信光的速度！
2024-06-07 22:39
你就是那大树，
他们就是那婆娑的影子，
你不能时时刻刻都顾影自怜啊？
不用担心，
要相信光的速度！
全部回复1 条回复
杨正瓴
赞
+1
赞
+1
美国SCIENCE杂志2014年2月的《Peering Into Peer Review》一文，主要观点摘录如下：
（1）同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果。这令人非常不安。 Peer review is not predicting outcomes at all. And that's quite disconcerting.
（2）高影响力的研究被拒绝了，而低影响力的研究却得到了资助。 There is high-impact research that has been rejected, and low-impact research that has been funded.
（3）在试验获得资助之前收到的同行评审优先级分数与发表时间之间没有显着关联。 There was no significant association between the peer-review priority scores received before the trial was funded and the time to publication,
______________________________________________
[旧闻]
2014年 SCIENCE 杂志：“同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果。这令人非常不安。”
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1308100.html
参考文献：
[1] JEFFREY MERVIS. Peering Into Peer Review [J]. SCIENCE, 7 Feb 2014,
Vol 343, Issue 6171, pp. 596-598. DOI: 10.1126/science.343.6171.596
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.343.6171.596
（1）同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果。这令人非常不安。 Peer review is not predicting outcomes at all. And that's quite disconcerting.
（2）高影响力的研究被拒绝了，而低影响力的研究却得到了资助。 There is high-impact research that has been rejected, and low-impact research that has been funded.
（3）在试验获得资助之前收到的同行评审优先级分数与发表时间之间没有显着关联。 There was no significant association between the peer-review priority scores received before the trial was funded and the time to publication,
______________________________________________
[旧闻]
2014年 SCIENCE 杂志：“同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果。这令人非常不安。”
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1308100.html
参考文献：
[1] JEFFREY MERVIS. Peering Into Peer Review [J]. SCIENCE, 7 Feb 2014,
Vol 343, Issue 6171, pp. 596-598. DOI: 10.1126/science.343.6171.596
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.343.6171.596
06-07 23:00
