That makes sense. As I’m won’t to say, there often risks/benefits/costs in each direction.
Ways in which I think communal and collaborative review are imperative:
Public reviews help establish the standards or reasoning expected in the community.
By reading other people’s evaluations, you can better learn how to perform your own.
It’s completely time prohibitive for me to thoroughly review every post that I might reference, instead I trust in the author. Dangerously, many people might do this and a post becomes highly cited despite flaws that would be exposed if a person or two spent several hours evaluating it*
I might be competent to understand and reference a paper, but lack the domain expertise to review it myself. The review of another domain expert can help me understanding the shortcoming’s of a post.
And as I think has been posted about, having a coordinated “review festival” is ideally an opportunity for people with different opinions about controversial topics to get together and hash it out. In an ideal world, review is the time when the community gets together to resolve what debates it can.
*An example is the work I began auditing the paper Eternity in Six Hours which is tied to the Astronomical Waste argument. Many people reference that argument, but as far as I know, few people have spent much time attempting to systematically evaluate its claims. (I do hope to finish that work and publish more on it sometime.)
That makes sense. As I’m won’t to say, there often risks/benefits/costs in each direction.
Ways in which I think communal and collaborative review are imperative:
Public reviews help establish the standards or reasoning expected in the community.
By reading other people’s evaluations, you can better learn how to perform your own.
It’s completely time prohibitive for me to thoroughly review every post that I might reference, instead I trust in the author. Dangerously, many people might do this and a post becomes highly cited despite flaws that would be exposed if a person or two spent several hours evaluating it*
I might be competent to understand and reference a paper, but lack the domain expertise to review it myself. The review of another domain expert can help me understanding the shortcoming’s of a post.
And as I think has been posted about, having a coordinated “review festival” is ideally an opportunity for people with different opinions about controversial topics to get together and hash it out. In an ideal world, review is the time when the community gets together to resolve what debates it can.
*An example is the work I began auditing the paper Eternity in Six Hours which is tied to the Astronomical Waste argument. Many people reference that argument, but as far as I know, few people have spent much time attempting to systematically evaluate its claims. (I do hope to finish that work and publish more on it sometime.)