同行评审不堪重负，AI时代能否存活？
Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
Jason Semprini was excited about his research on policies mandating that elementary school students receive the human papillomavirus vaccine. HPV causes most cases of cervical cancer, but counterintuitively, Semprini found that mandates don’t do that much to reduce the overall rate of cervical cancer in a population. That’s odd, but it's also not completely surprising—we know that mandating a vaccine can motivate some people to find ways to avoid it.
Jason Semprini 对他关于强制小学生接种人乳头瘤病毒疫苗政策的研究感到兴奋。HPV 导致大多数宫颈癌病例，但出乎意料的是，Semprini 发现强制接种并不能在很大程度上降低人群中宫颈癌的总体发病率。这很奇怪，但也不完全令人惊讶——我们知道强制接种疫苗可能会促使一些人寻找规避的方法。
Semprini wrote up the study and submitted the manuscript to a journal, where it was sent out for peer review, a long-standing process through which other researchers in the field assess the validity of research and make a recommendation on whether or not it should be published. This is usually done anonymously and on a volunteer basis.
Semprini 写下了这项研究并将手稿提交给一家期刊，该期刊将其送交同行评审，这是一个长期存在的流程，通过该流程，该领域的其他研究人员评估研究的有效性，并就其是否应该发表提出建议。这通常是匿名和自愿进行的。
In this case, the reviewer did not share Semprini’s excitement. That may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of the study’s central message: The reviewer mistakenly thought Semprini was questioning whether the HPV vaccine itself prevents cervical cancer rather than studying the effectiveness of a policy meant to increase vaccination rates. “There’s a very big difference there,” said Semprini, who is a health economist at Des Moines University.
在这种情况下，审稿人并不像 Semprini 那样兴奋。这可能源于对研究核心信息的误解：审稿人错误地认为 Semprini 是在质疑 HPV 疫苗本身是否能预防宫颈癌，而不是在研究旨在提高疫苗接种率的政策的有效性。德梅因大学的健康经济学家 Semprini 说：“这两者之间有很大的区别。”
Read full article
阅读全文
Comments
评论
更进一步：量化金融体系
看懂新闻只是起点——沿量化金融路径，把它变成能交付的工程能力