• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How reliable is peer review

We Never Know

No Slack
So you claim it, but you are not even going to bother to address a reasonable request for papers that you specifically feel have merit in the discussion. I was not asking for many things on the net or search results. I was asking for things that are relevant in your opinion and why you consider them relevant.

You may want to retract comments you made to others about avoidance and anyone on here being able to claim things whether they are true or not.

I've already post two like for two studies in this thread. That Bing link gives you many more. Go get them
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
:facepalm: I've posted links to studies, gave anologies, etc. I'm done.
It is my personal opinion that you do not have a deeper experience with peer review and that you simply read a couple of papers and have no more knowledge of the subject than the extent of those papers. That is a fair and reasonable conclusion based on what I have seen and your reticence in reasonable requests that would support your claims.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Many things on the net. You seem interested so I will leave this.

Peer review is flawed - Bing

If you don't like Bing, use Google.

Everybody wants links, yet when links are posted they complain but don't refute. Why should anyone even post the links?

Your questions and concerns have already been addressed many times.

Again , , ,

First, Peer review is not central to science. The whole scope of methodological naturalism where research is repeated many times to verify the reproducibility and predictability of every hypothesis, and published research over time forms the foundation of science. Second, peer review is only one step in a longer process of research in any one science field of research. Third peer review does represent a first step in the process of confirming the validity of research. A number of articles on research are turned down on the basis of the peer review process,
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Your questions and concerns have already been addressed many times.

Again , , ,

First, Peer review is not central to science. The whole scope of methodological naturalism where research is repeated many times to verify the reproducibility and predictability of every hypothesis, and published research over time forms the foundation of science. Second, peer review is only one step in a longer process of research in any one science field of research. Third peer review does represent a first step in the process of confirming the validity of research. A number of articles on research are turned down on the basis of the peer review process,
Certainly, I would expect cutting edge work with serious implications and scope would receive greater scrutiny and review.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
It is my personal opinion that you do not have a deeper experience with peer review and that you simply read a couple of papers and have no more knowledge of the subject than the extent of those papers. That is a fair and reasonable conclusion based on what I have seen and your reticence in reasonable requests that would support your claims.


And that's your opinion. However I don't put much stock or trust in opinions when there are studies from experience that show/produce evidence that shows a difference. And you as well may be a scientists too, which instead of giving opinion, you should refute the linked studies since science isn't opinion.

Everything I post is accompanied with a link(well besides the opinion wars afterwords) and I always try post links to studies/information because that's what brings it all out. I've yet to see an opinion that trumps a reputable study.

Same question to you, hopefully you will put forth a reply.
You start a study. You do tests and experiments for that study. You finally get the results you were looking for. You repeat all your tests and experiments and get the same results(the scientific method).
You now are ready to put your paper together with your data, (tests, experiments and results). You put it forth and submit it in for peer review.
What steps do your peers use to verify everything in your paper is correct and nothing has been fudged to get the expected results before they allow it to pass and be published? Do they test it, do experiments as you did, or give opinion on your data?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Your questions and concerns have already been addressed many times.

Again , , ,

First, Peer review is not central to science. The whole scope of methodological naturalism where research is repeated many times to verify the reproducibility and predictability of every hypothesis, and published research over time forms the foundation of science. Second, peer review is only one step in a longer process of research in any one science field of research. Third peer review does represent a first step in the process of confirming the validity of research. A number of articles on research are turned down on the basis of the peer review process,

Exactly. Peer review is not central to science. It's is flawed and needs work.
Peer review can pass papers without repeating tests or experiments. However many here think if it passes peer review its set in stone and fact. That's wrong.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
And that's your opinion. However I don't put much stock or trust in opinions when there are studies from experience that show/produce evidence that shows a difference. And you as well may be a scientists too, which instead of giving opinion, you should refute the linked studies since science isn't opinion.

Everything I post is accompanied with a link(well besides the opinion wars afterwords) and I always try post links to studies/information because that's what brings it all out. I've yet to see an opinion that trumps a reputable study.

Same question to you, hopefully you will put forth a reply.
You start a study. You do tests and experiments for that study. You finally get the results you were looking for. You repeat all your tests and experiments and get the same results(the scientific method).
You now are ready to put your paper together with your data, (tests, experiments and results). You put it forth and submit it in for peer review.
What steps do your peers use to verify everything in your paper is correct and nothing has been fudged to get the expected results before they allow it to pass and be published? Do they test it, do experiments as you did, or give opinion on your data?
My opinion was regarding your level of knowledge and experience and has nothing to do with any opinion I have on the topic of this thread.

You claimed a deeper knowledge and experience of the subject matter implying that you have had personal interaction with the peer review process. When questioned, you did everything you could to avoid responding affirmatively and meaningfully. You followed that up with an effort to lay it at my feet and make me do your work in supporting your burden of proof.

I agree with the evidence that indicates the review process needs to be improved in some areas, but I am not trying to pretend a level of expertise I do not have and one that anyone can pretend to using Google.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Exactly. Peer review is not central to science. It's is flawed and needs work.
Peer review can pass papers without repeating tests or experiments. However many here think if it passes peer review its set in stone and fact. That's wrong.
I did not get that impression from the posts I read. What I saw was the opinion of several people that appear to be familiar with the process and the understanding that pseudoscience and quasi-religious claims about science do not go through any independent review process or, more often, any review process.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
My opinion was regarding your level of knowledge and experience and has nothing to do with any opinion I have on the topic of this thread.

You claimed a deeper knowledge and experience of the subject matter implying that you have had personal interaction with the peer review process. When questioned, you did everything you could to avoid responding affirmatively and meaningfully. You followed that up with an effort to lay it at my feet and make me do your work in supporting your burden of proof.

I agree with the evidence that indicates the review process needs to be improved in some areas, but I am not trying to pretend a level of expertise I do not have and one that anyone can pretend to using Google.

My expertise if given would be my opinion without studies. Linking studies done by others is evidence, not my opinion. I can tell you my thoughts, my ideas but without linked study, they are only my opinion, which I have given several times and was met with attacks. So again I fall bsck on the linked studies to support what I've posted.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I did not get that impression from the posts I read. What I saw was the opinion of several people that appear to be familiar with the process and the understanding that pseudoscience and quasi-religious claims about science do not go through any independent review process or, more often, any review process.

I get many impressions.
From some saying peer review is a minimal step to other that say it isn't.
From some that say it repeats tests to others that say it doesn't.
From some that say it's vital to others that say it just a step.
Etc

It's all there to read in the thread.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
My opinion was regarding your level of knowledge and experience and has nothing to do with any opinion I have on the topic of this thread.

You claimed a deeper knowledge and experience of the subject matter implying that you have had personal interaction with the peer review process. When questioned, you did everything you could to avoid responding affirmatively and meaningfully. You followed that up with an effort to lay it at my feet and make me do your work in supporting your burden of proof.

I agree with the evidence that indicates the review process needs to be improved in some areas, but I am not trying to pretend a level of expertise I do not have and one that anyone can pretend to using Google.
I am not an expert in peer review either. Like you and most we rely on studies to try to validate what is out there.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
My expertise if given would be my opinion without studies. Linking studies done by others is evidence, not my opinion. I can tell you my thoughts, my ideas but without linked study, they are only my opinion, which I have given several times and was met with attacks. So again I fall bsck on the linked studies to support what I've posted.
I do not doubt that you can post another page avoiding responsibility for supporting several of your previous claims that reasonable requests have been put to you regarding them. I will read what else you have to say in your succeeding posts, but I see nothing fruitful from responding to replays of the same avoidance.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I do not doubt that you can post another page avoiding responsibility for supporting several of your previous claims that reasonable requests have been put to you regarding them. I will read what else you have to say in your succeeding posts, but I see nothing fruitful from responding to replays of the same avoidance.
So you value opinion over studies? That's what I'm getting from you.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
My opinion was regarding your level of knowledge and experience and has nothing to do with any opinion I have on the topic of this thread.

You claimed a deeper knowledge and experience of the subject matter implying that you have had personal interaction with the peer review process. When questioned, you did everything you could to avoid responding affirmatively and meaningfully. You followed that up with an effort to lay it at my feet and make me do your work in supporting your burden of proof.

I agree with the evidence that indicates the review process needs to be improved in some areas, but I am not trying to pretend a level of expertise I do not have and one that anyone can pretend to using Google.

And I can just as easily give my opinion of you as a fry cook at McDonald's with a googlecation (a term some colleagues and I coined about 11 years ago) but it would be unsupported.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I do not doubt that you can post another page avoiding responsibility for supporting several of your previous claims that reasonable requests have been put to you regarding them. I will read what else you have to say in your succeeding posts, but I see nothing fruitful from responding to replays of the same avoidance.
Here's the irony of it all. If I posted it all without links, everyone would cry for links because it was my opinion. Yet I posted links now people ignore they links cry for my opinion. It doesn't work that way.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
And I can just as easily give my opinion of you as a fry cook at McDonald's with a googlecation (a term some colleagues and I coined about 11 years ago) but it would be unsupported.
You could and you may, but it does not have anything to do with the discussion nor does it mitigate your obvious efforts to avoid supporting the claims you made or the implication that you are someone intimately familiar with the peer review process.

Your opinion would have no weight, since there is no indication that I am a fry cook or that being a fry cook is derogatory. While, I have the evidence of this thread to draw on for the opinion I have expressed.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You could and you may, but it does not have anything to do with the discussion nor does it mitigate your obvious efforts to avoid supporting the claims you made or the implication that you are someone intimately familiar with the peer review process.

Your opinion would have no weight, since there is no indication that I am a fry cook or that being a fry cook is derogatory. While, I have the evidence of this thread to draw on for the opinion I have expressed.

The links support what I've said. I've tried to avoid my opinion as support because my opinion isn't support nor does it out trump the studies.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You could and you may, but it does not have anything to do with the discussion nor does it mitigate your obvious efforts to avoid supporting the claims you made or the implication that you are someone intimately familiar with the peer review process.

Your opinion would have no weight, since there is no indication that I am a fry cook or that being a fry cook is derogatory. While, I have the evidence of this thread to draw on for the opinion I have expressed.

Let's go this route. It's my opinion peer review is flawed, bias and needs work. I've personally seen it.
It's also my opinion if you do a study, test it and repeat test it then submit your results for peer review, your peers should at random reproduce some of your results before they let it pass their review and be published. If none of your data is randomly reproduced/tested by the peers that pass your paper and allow it to be published, they are doing so based solely upon the summiters work and results instead of their own. That's about as black and white as it can be put.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
You could and you may, but it does not have anything to do with the discussion nor does it mitigate your obvious efforts to avoid supporting the claims you made or the implication that you are someone intimately familiar with the peer review process.

Your opinion would have no weight, since there is no indication that I am a fry cook or that being a fry cook is derogatory. While, I have the evidence of this thread to draw on for the opinion I have expressed.

And I already said my opinion of that would be unsupported didn't I?
 
Top