Open Peer Review: New Rule

New rule! From this moment forward, in anything claiming to be a “discussion” of open peer review, no one is allowed to refer to the Nature experiment as evidence that open review can’t work, at least not unless you simultaneously demonstrate (a) that you’re aware of at least one experiment in which it worked quite well (hey, wait; the results were even reproducible!) and (b) that you’ve read at least one text that asks a question or two about the Nature experiment’s presuppositions, and thus its scientific merit. We can call this the Fitzpatrick variant of Godwin’s Law; once Nature gets trotted out, it’s evident that you’re not interested in a real discussion.

That is all.

4 thoughts on “Open Peer Review: New Rule

  1. I should have said less ambiguously thank you for visiting anthropology-land and offering valuable resources and counter-examples for us to consider.

  2. Ach, my irritation at the perennial Nature maneuver got the better of me. I hope the counter examples might actually be useful; I think there’s far more potential benefit to be explored than is apparently being granted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.