Termine

Peer review is often taken to be the main form of quality control on academic research. Usually journals carry this out. I argue that crowd-sourced peer review is likely to do better than journal-solicited peer review at selecting high-quality work. The argument rests on an appeal to the wisdom of the crowds. I also consider other consequences that changing how we organize peer review will have, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behavior of individual scientists. I argue that where these consequences can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on current evidence (a non-trivial caveat, as there is significant uncertainty which I will also highlight), they are either positive or neutral. On balance, a change to how we organize peer review is strongly supported.

Details can be found on the eLearning site (https://elearning.uni-bayreuth.de/course/view.php?id=27601), where you will also find the Zoom link. We look forward to seeing many of you there!