A few peer reviewers with better things to do aren't as good as a few thousand people who can be incorrect about guessing fraud, and face 0 penalty.
Different incentives, different barrier to entry. I think this is a pretty irresponsible article.
Different incentives, different barrier to entry. I think this is a pretty irresponsible article.
Catching a scientific cheater:
* You improve the collective knowledge of humanity.
* If the cheater is in your own country, you may also reduce the size of the grant-seeking pool
* Fame? I doubt it.
Catching a speed-run cheater:
* If you're a contender, you retain your place on the leaderboard
* Fame.
Note too that the baseline assumption in science is that while we can make mistakes, we're not fraudsters. The reason science advanced so far and so quickly is that we basically trust one another. The baseline assumption in competitive games is that there will be cheaters.
Several classes I had emphasized that peer reviewed journal papers were basically only good for reading their methods and results of those methods. And even those come with the baggage of "ok, but who put this out, because we know xyz groups make shit up all the time"