A scientist can spend several months, in many cases even years, strenuously investigating a single research question, with the ultimate goal of making a contribution—little or big—to the progress of human knowledge.
Succeeding in this hard task requires specialized, years-long training, intuition, creativity, in-depth knowledge of current and past theories and, most of all— lots of perseverance.
But, prior to publication, any investigation must pass the screening of the “peer review.” This is a critical part of the process—only after peer review can a work be considered part of the scientific literature. And only peer-reviewed work will be counted during hiring and evaluation, as a valuable unit of work.
What are the implications of the current publication system—based on peer review—on the progress of science at a time when competition among scientists is rising?
Topics in the article include:
The impact factor and metrics of success
Big discoveries also got rejected
Problems with peer review