{"id":693,"date":"2013-05-09T14:54:26","date_gmt":"2013-05-09T19:54:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/?p=693"},"modified":"2013-05-09T14:54:26","modified_gmt":"2013-05-09T19:54:26","slug":"the-new-yorker-spread-the-lamar-smith-wants-to-kill-peer-review-rumor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/2013\/05\/09\/the-new-yorker-spread-the-lamar-smith-wants-to-kill-peer-review-rumor\/","title":{"rendered":"The New Yorker spread the “Lamar Smith wants to kill peer review” rumor"},"content":{"rendered":"

The New Yorker<\/em> has a piece<\/a> up about how Lamar Smith’s new bill will get rid of peer review at the National Science Foundation. As far as I can tell<\/a>, the bill would do no such thing.<\/p>\n

Currently, proposals are evaluated through a traditional peer-review process, in which scientists and experts with knowledge of the relevant fields evaluate the projects\u2019 \u201cintellectual merits\u201d and \u201cbroader impacts.\u201d Peer review is a central tenet of modern academic science, and, according to critics, the new bill threatens to supersede it with politics.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This paragraph would be fine, if it were followed by a clear statement that the last sentence, while it may be true “according to critics” is not, you know, actually true<\/em>. There’s nothing in the text of the bill that can reasonably be described in this way.<\/p>\n

If I were full of nostalgia for the glory days of the New Yorker,<\/em> I’d say something at this point about William Shawn spinning in his grave, but I’m not, so I won’t.<\/p>\n

(Just to shore up my anti-Republican bona fides, let me repeat some things from my earlier post. Despite the fact that this bill is being mischaracterized by its critics, it’s still a bad idea, and Lamar Smith and many of his fellow Congressional Republicans are indeed Enemies of Science.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The New Yorker has a piece up about how Lamar Smith’s new bill will get rid of peer review at the National Science Foundation. As far as I can tell, the bill would do no such thing. Currently, proposals are evaluated through a traditional peer-review process, in which scientists and experts with knowledge of the … Continue reading The New Yorker spread the “Lamar Smith wants to kill peer review” rumor<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/physicsbunn\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}