Content deleted Content added
m →See also: + Sokal affair |
|||
Line 3:
==Reasons for peer review==
A chief rationale for peer review is that rarely is just one person, or one closely working group, able to spot every mistake or weakness in a complicated piece of work. This is not necessarily because these deficiencies represent needles in a haystack, but because in a new and creative and perhaps eclectic intellectual product, any one of these opportunities for improvement may stand out only to someone with a particular expertise and/or history of experience. Therefore showing a work to various others increases the probability that the weakness will be identified—and, with advice and encouragement, fixed. The [[anonymity]] and [[independence]] of reviewers is intended to foster unvarnished criticism and discourage [[cronyism]] in funding and publication decisions.
== How it works ==
| |||