{"id":3784,"date":"2010-06-07T23:11:58","date_gmt":"2010-06-08T06:11:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/?p=3784"},"modified":"2010-06-07T23:11:58","modified_gmt":"2010-06-08T06:11:58","slug":"portrait-of-a-reviewer-as-a-young-man","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2010\/06\/07\/portrait-of-a-reviewer-as-a-young-man\/","title":{"rendered":"Portrait of a Reviewer as a Young Man"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Science is dynamic.  Sometimes this means that science is wrong, sometimes it means that science is messy.  Mostly it is very self-correcting, given the current state of knowledge.  At any given time the body of science knows a lot, but could be overturned when new evidence comes in.  What we produce through all of this, however, at the end of the day, are polished journal articles.  Polished journal articles.<br \/>\nEvery time I think about this disparity, I wonder why different versions of a paper, the referee reports, the author responses, and all editorial reviews aren&#8217;t part of the scientific record.  In an age where online archiving of data such as this is a minor cost, why is so much of the review process revealed to only the authors, the referees, and the editors?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Science is dynamic. Sometimes this means that science is wrong, sometimes it means that science is messy. Mostly it is very self-correcting, given the current state of knowledge. At any given time the body of science knows a lot, but could be overturned when new evidence comes in. What we produce through all of this, &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/2010\/06\/07\/portrait-of-a-reviewer-as-a-young-man\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Portrait of a Reviewer as a Young Man&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[73,86],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scientific-publishing","category-the-loony-bin-called-academia"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3784"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3784\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dabacon.org\/pontiff\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}