Submitted by AromaticChimpanzee t3_z8tglm in science
It happened to me too. It was a “fast track” peer review process
Such a weird dichotomy. I have 2 COVID era papers; one was published after 8 months with a 21 page revision. Another is still under review at its 3rd journal.
I would imagine name recognition plays some role (if you couldn’t figure it out I don’t have it) but my experience certainly wasn’t of a faster process. Instead, it was more thorough than regular review.
[removed]
It could also be you’re suggesting something people don’t want to hear.
Shouldn't be; it corresponds with a lot of the literature on the effectiveness of COVID shutdown policies to COVID cases (reduced it) and deaths (minimal impact).
Yeah, that doesn’t sound controversial. But I guess that would also depend on who is reviewing it.
True. The joys of figuring out the peer review process.
I suspect the fact that it wasn't controversial is exactly why it took so long to get it published. Read or listen to the book "making the world add up" by Tim Harford to see how ridiculous the peer review process can be.
Listen to How to Make the World Add Up by Tim Harford on Audible. https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/1405543000?source_code=ASSOR150021921000V
Adam Ruins Everything did a podcast episode on the peer review process and how flawed it is. That was like 10 years ago, though. Apparently, things didn't change, yet.
[removed]
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
You know something is wrong in science when 90% of studies cannot be replicated.
Isn't that only the soft sciences, though?
No, that's all science. It approaches 100 for soft sciences. Granted, the bar for what is "replicable" is far higher the harder the science gets
Do you happen to have a reference for that figure?
Tell me that this study isn’t going to be retracted …
Basically, capitalism is ruining science. The pressure to publish and to have results that support your hypothesis incentivizes people to cheat. Should we be surprised?
MrSpotgold t1_iyd63xy wrote
I reviewed a paper for a Q1 journal about COVID19 and had serious issues with it. Paper was published anyway, and now I use it as an example of bad practice in my lectures. Oh, and I will never review for that journal in my life.