{.size-large .wp-image-15256 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“15256” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2018/08/25/down-in-flames/enterprise-fiery-reentry-st3/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/enterprise-fiery-reentry-st3.jpg” orig-size=“1024,516” comments-opened=“1”

After the authors’ own work, the biggest contribution to a published paper is the reviews provided, gratis, by peers. When peer-review works as it’s supposed to, they add significant value to the final paper. But the actual reviews are never seen by anyone except the authors and the handling editor. This is bad for several reasons.

An interesting conversation arose in the comments to Matt’s last post — interesting to me, at least, but then since I wrote much of it, I am biased.  I think it merits promotion to its own post, though.  Paul Graham, among many others, has written about how one of the most important reasons to write about a subject is that the process of doing so helps you work through exactly what you think about it.