|
Well, I think the standards for fiction writing and scientific/academic writing are very different.
I'm not going to depend on a fiction novel to tell me where to put my stock, or whether my food is safe. No one even half-way sane would.
Since there is no special importance to fiction apart from enjoyment and literacy, there's no risk in relying on an organic or even non-professional peer review system. It may even offer some benefits when you take money out of the picture.
Doing this with academic and scientific content is obviously a terrible idea. Professionals in these arenas exist for a reason - these subjects are complex and require years of study and training to understand. While I do trust an independent study of a drug more than an in-house study, that independent study is still being carrier out by professional scientists and peer reviewed by professional scientists. Because this is information that people base their lives and livelihoods on.
All the examples of mass consensus crap you mention are products of publishing houses. You're only demonstrating my point that the seal of approval from a publishing house doesn't mean something will be good.
|