The Authoritarian View of Knowledge: Peer Review


The Alternative Hypothesis


Published on Jul 23, 2019


Social Media:

=== Time Stamps:

5:55 - Big vs. Small Journals

11:51 - Judging Methodology Based on Conclusions

15:59 - BMJ Study on Error Identification Rate

17:37 - Prestige and Paper Acceptance

22:59 - Inter-Rate Reliability

24:17 - Does "Peer Review" CAUSE Studies to be Better Done?

26:58 - A HOT TAKE on "Peer Review"


1. Reviewer Bias, Annals of Internal Medicine:

2. Peer Review and Editorial Decision Making:

3. Effect of Institutional Prestige on Reviewer's Recommendations and Editorial Decisions:

4. Effect of Blinded Peer Review on Abstract Acceptance:

5. Double-Blind Peer Review Failure Rate:

6. Are Road Safety Evaluation Studies Published in Peer Reviewed Journals More Valid than Similar Studies not Published in Peer Reviewd Journals:

7. A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multileval Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants:

8. Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability:

9. Confirmational Response Bias Among Social Work Journals:

10. Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review:

11. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?

12. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index

13. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

  AutoPlay Next Video