The DOI matches its Crossref record.
When peers are not peers and don't know it: The Dunning‐Kruger effect and self‐fulfilling prophecy in peer‐review
Abstract
The fateful combination of (i) the Dunning‐Kruger effect (ignorance of one's own ignorance) with (ii) the nonlinear dynamics of the echo‐chamber between reviewers and editors fuels a self‐reinforcing collective delusion system that sometimes spirals uncontrollably away from objectivity and truth. Escape from this subconscious meta‐ignorance is a formidable challenge but if achieved will help correct a central deficit of the peer‐review process that stifles innovation and paradigm shifts.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research validates less competent humans often exaggerate their level of skill and knowledge.
“given research validates less competent humans often exaggerate their level of skill and knowledge [98].”
From What People Really Think About Safety around Horses: The Relationship between Risk Perception, Values and Safety Behaviours (2020) · cites this paper as [98]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Dunning D., 2011, The Dunning‐Kruger effect: On being ignorant of one's own ignorance, Adv Exp Soc Psychol, 44, 249
- 10.1002/bies.201100031 · DOI
- Darwin C., 1871, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
- Russell B., 2009, The Triumph of Stupidity. Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays 1931–1935, 10.4324/9780203875339 · DOI
- Waddington CH., 1942, The epigenotype, Endeavour, 1, 18
- 10.1177/1350508411403531 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1126/science.1227833 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., & Thompson, K. (2020) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani10122222 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, S.
- Venue
- BioEssays
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-02-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 414-416
- ISSN
- 0265-9247
- 1521-1878
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
