Is peer-review the best way to get crap published?
If you are interested in the debate, read this post.
The post discusses the key topic of whether peer-review is really the best solution for controlling the quality of research. It seems that reviewers tend to express more often negative judgements in the case of broad theories they have objections to, rather than in the case of minor assessments. The result is the “triviality that many continental philosophers associate with analytic philosophy”. Are you among them? And how do you review articles?
Comments and discussions are welcome. Be sure you are making a point and contributing to the discussion.