Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018)

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by btrettel on Sunday December 01, 2019 @10:16PM (#21679548)

> We know that post publication peer review works perfectly well because it was the norm until after WWII with the rise of state funding of big science and the accompanying ass covering and form filling proceduralism that made it popular.

You know if there's anything written about the history of the modern scientific process, specifically on the rise of state funding of science? I'm particularly interested in when academics started to be essentially required to bring in external funding. I've only read offhand remarks like this and don't feel I have the full story.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by libraryofbabel on Sunday December 01, 2019 @11:27PM (#21679814)

This is an active area of interest in History of Science scholarship these days, which is steadily dismantling a lot of myths about how long peer review has existed and where it came from. It is in fact linked to the need to bring in funds from big grants agencies during the Cold War. You might try for example Melinda Baldwin, Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States, which has a lot of references to recent scholarship: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/700070

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Troubling trends in machine learning scholarship (2018) by btrettel on Sunday December 01, 2019 @11:48PM (#21679875)

Thanks, your reply is among the best I've ever received at HN! This is why I post here.

[ Parent | on HN ]