>>11299>It wasn't mass producibleAnd efforts to make it so were stalled by the system including peer review.
>When hobbyist non-experts get to decide what resources we spend on science we get bullshit like NASA wasting time on the EM drive.LMAO you're talking about Harold White who literally has a P.h.D in physics among other degrees, and what happened were technical mistakes and a repetition of claimed experiments is what disproved it. "hobbyism" had nothing to do with it and peer review did nothing but muddy the water.
>peer-review is supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff by using experts who can quickly spot unproductive nonsense Except this is clearly not the case and on a systemic level, as I have explained in detail.
>how will I be able to sift through thousands of papers in my limited lifespan to find ones that aren't just made up numbers and basing my entire knowledge of a field on potential bullshit By the fact that you're not the only person doing this?
>Yes things fall through the cracks Constantly and in large quantities
>I've not seen any better system proposedAh yes the usual liberal excuse that gets repeated word-for-word ad nauseum
First, do a basic browser search: literally the first thing that comes up:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237011/ Second, I'll come up with a system off the top of my head, since I actually use my brain
to think and not just regurgitate facts like a bio-encyclopedia.
1) Have a paid, specific group of experts read works on specific subjects that require it*, with a member of staff for Literacy, checking to make sure the work is grammatically correct, spelled correctly and formatted properly, an expert on the subject at hand that analyzes and attempts to replicate the data analysis mathematically to make sure the numbers are correct. The author of the paper will be held anonymous from them until they are finished reviewing. The groups will be rotated, serving their position for a single year and never consecutively. The members of the board will all be vetted prior to their appointment(s) and checked to make sure their expertise is earned.
*Topics such as behavioral observational research of bird migrations or what-not should not require Full-Board review, it is observational research
2) Graduate and Post-Graduate works should not be released to the public unless they represent an actual change to research on the established subjects, and should remain merely as on their personal records unless they specifically publish it outside the main system, which will be on them. Thus their first published research would actually BE research and not just following the footsteps of a dozen other Post-Grad students on the same subjects as before.
This is all very simplified and not in detail because as much as I effort-post, this is still an imageboard /b/ thread, however even in this basic format it is far superior to the free, decentralized, voluntary and biased Peer-Review system that has NO guards to prevent reviewers from using personal opinion to bar perfectly good research, or simply be too lazy/overworked to bother paying attention to the work they're reviewing and letting blatant garbage out into the system. The constant flow of repetitive, useless research by the thousands of Post-Graduates each year also floods "the market" (so to speak) and overtaxes any actually good-faith reviewers in the system.
So to conclude, if you're going to play the "there's no better way" card (which is the same argument lumpens use to defend capitalism) then do yourself the favor of looking up alternatives or thinking for yourself, rather than just defending a broken system of organized chaos.
>do you get recommendations for what to read from other leftists, or do you just pick a random book at the library and read the entire thing I get recommendations from people, being leftist is irrelevant unless the books are specific to leftist topics, I also may choose to ignore recommendations entirely and read a book in the library with no prompting from others, I may also take the time to research the author and their statements, ignoring all opinion about them to see who they are. I do not rely on one method, nor do I give reviews any more weight than someone's opinion unless a detailed, relevant and explained reason is given, something that scientific peer review fails to do most of the time.
Stop bootlicking the scientific establishment when it is rotten. Peer Review dismissed claims of smoking causing Cancer and other diseases for decades as an example and doctors/scientists promoted it as healthy. There is absolutely no reason they can't or won't act in corporate interests and against scientific truth in any other subject, should it benefit them.
>>11300>Peer review is not perfect but it's the best system we've got so far<Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've got so farSpoken like a true liberal
>laypeople Just say Laymen, you etymologically challenged ignoramus.
>Publishing in a reputable journal means a panel of turbo autists scrutinized your shit, often competitors even LOL right, and this is good how? Nitpicking, cherry-picking, personal biases and so on are all parts of that and the fact that it only takes one reviewer to have a bad day and say something negative will prevent a perfectly good paper from being published. Calling them turbo-autists is correct, because their criticisms range from rambling nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject, to being anal about certain words being used and that a synonym should replace them, even when it's purely aesthetic. It forces people to cut down explanations or expand them unnecessarily, leading to the format most peer reviewed works have, incomprehensible pseudo-intellectual nonsense draped over the actual data and forcing readers to decipher what should be cut and dry facts.