The Disincentive of Peer Reviewers

2min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

In many fields, the reviewers anonymous. So I don't see why they would have an incentive to kiss up to the person they're reviewing or say that their theory is cracked. And honestly, my experience is that peer reviewers are pretty brutal. Like they often make really scathing critiques, often false critiques,. like not very good critiques, but they can be scathing and jerky about it.

Read the full transcript here.

What is the New Enlightenment? What might it mean to improve our epistemics with regard to institutions? How should we fix imbalanced salience in contexts where misinformation is a problem (like news media)? How have the economics of institutions deteriorated? How can we continually reinvigorate systems so that they remain ungameable and resistant to runaway feedback loops? In the context of government in particular, how can we move away from "one dollar, one vote" and back towards "one person, one vote"? At what levels or layers should institutional interventions be applied? What can we do to increase trust across social differences and reduce contempt among groups? Under what conditions is it rational to feel contempt for an out-group? How can we make conflict and "dunking" less appealing, and make openmindedness and careful consideration more appealing? What is the "dismissal" economy? How can we deal with information overload? How might the adversarial economic model be used to improve academia?

Ashley Hodgson is an Associate Professor of Economics and a YouTuber. She teaches behavioral economics, digital industries, health care economics, and blockchain economics. Her YouTube channel, The New Enlightenment, explores topics related to economics, governance, and epistemics — that is, the determination of truth and validity — in a world of social media and increasing power concentration. She also has another YouTube channel with her economics lectures.

Staff