News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The Absurdity of Peer Review: What the Pandemic Revealed by eesmith on Monday June 07, 2021 @12:36AM (#27419042)
I think Humphries is using "peer review" as a short-hand for "external peer review".

Compare Humphries' statement: "None of the classic papers on DNA, nor Einstein’s four in his miracle year, were peer reviewed.

with this quote from Wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review (emphasis mine):

> Peer review became a touchstone of the scientific method, but until the end of the 19th century was often performed directly by an editor-in-chief or editorial committee. Editors of scientific journals at that time made publication decisions without seeking outside input, i.e. an external panel of reviewers, giving established authors latitude in their journalistic discretion. For example, Albert Einstein's four revolutionary Annus Mirabilis papers in the 1905 issue of Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the journal's editor-in-chief, Max Planck, and its co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, both future Nobel prize winners and together experts on the topics of these papers.

The latter quote supports your expectation that Einstein's work was indeed scrutinized by his peers.

I'll use that distinction between internal and external peer review to analyze this quote by Humphries: "And the media have dealt with this explosion by consistently pointing out when research has not yet been peer reviewed. Presumably they do this to warn the reader that the research lacks the safeguards that peer review brings."

This means the media is reporting that a given preprint has had neither internal peer review by an editor, nor external peer review.

There are no comments on this comment yet.