There are many problems with how many people perceive peer-review process that I gathered from my interactions with non-academics.
1. They assume that peer-review means reproducing the paper.
This is not the case. It just means that it is a work that followed the scientific method and does not have serious and obvious problems (like being a complete non-sense). Well there is a quality curve for that of-course depending on the editors/journals and peer-reviewers
2. Academics have to do peer review as part of their jobs.
It is always surprising for them to know that peer review is a volunteer based work in vast majority of cases. It is even a burden for many people that affects their actual funded work. The publishing industry has one of the highest profit margin for a reason.
3. The peer review process is the same across fields.
There is no way that CERN papers will be treated the same and a neuroscience lab at an average research institution. Not because of one being better and higher quality but because of different fields and journals..etc.
4. Peer-review is an essential part to confirm the results.
In reality peer-review is a filter to help scientists navigate the sea of new papers in their fields. And by filter I mean filter the non-sense and the low quality research not the correct results. Something also about making sure that the methodology and results make sense.
Those points are usually what I see people discussing and forming opinion based on. Any solution for the current academic problems will not only need a regulation and new policies. The real need will be a change the structure of funding and how it is allocated (with an actual increase in budget). This is where many people will start to think that there are other priorities for a budget increase.
By actual I mean an increase that really do more than barely catching with the inflation rate.
1. They assume that peer-review means reproducing the paper.
This is not the case. It just means that it is a work that followed the scientific method and does not have serious and obvious problems (like being a complete non-sense). Well there is a quality curve for that of-course depending on the editors/journals and peer-reviewers
2. Academics have to do peer review as part of their jobs.
It is always surprising for them to know that peer review is a volunteer based work in vast majority of cases. It is even a burden for many people that affects their actual funded work. The publishing industry has one of the highest profit margin for a reason.
3. The peer review process is the same across fields.
There is no way that CERN papers will be treated the same and a neuroscience lab at an average research institution. Not because of one being better and higher quality but because of different fields and journals..etc.
4. Peer-review is an essential part to confirm the results.
In reality peer-review is a filter to help scientists navigate the sea of new papers in their fields. And by filter I mean filter the non-sense and the low quality research not the correct results. Something also about making sure that the methodology and results make sense.
Those points are usually what I see people discussing and forming opinion based on. Any solution for the current academic problems will not only need a regulation and new policies. The real need will be a change the structure of funding and how it is allocated (with an actual increase in budget). This is where many people will start to think that there are other priorities for a budget increase.
By actual I mean an increase that really do more than barely catching with the inflation rate.