Dan Goodman on Nostr: npub17nd8s…s77sr traditional peer review done well is no doubt labour intensive. ...

npub17nd8sc5pg42rgsk56gja0yc0jvn2hu9j05jh097gnut33dl73hhqls77sr (npub17nd…77sr) traditional peer review done well is no doubt labour intensive. The question is whether or not it's valuable, and if so if that value is proportionate to the labour cost, and whether or not there's another way of making scientific results available that is better. In my opinion, it is valuable although also problematic in terms of systematic bias, it's wildly disproportionately labour intensive for the value you get, and there's a much better way to do things that - as it happens - can be semi automated (post publication peer review).