How reliable is peer review

shunyadragon · Jun 9, 2019

We Never Know said:
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.

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 · Jun 9, 2019

We Never Know said:
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.

There you go again, with a claim of personal, direct knowledge that does not seem to flow through in your posts and you have gone to some length to avoid elaborating on. Have you conducted scientific experiments and written them up and submitted these for publication? Have you been through the peer review process in any way? These are simple questions that you should be able to answer regardless of the answer and they in no way identify your person. The answers to these questions neither support nor lead to a rejection of the points directly regarding peer review that you have made. I would also point out that I have not made any statements rejecting some of the cautions represented regarding peer review.

Having reviewers repeat work that has already been carried out is an unrealistic expectation that is not required in peer review nor is it necessary. To me, this speaks of someone that does not have an intimate knowledge of the process. This is OK. It is not required, but to allude to this level of experience when it does not exist is a problem.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 9, 2019

We Never Know said:
And I already said my opinion of that would be unsupported didn't I?

Yes. I know why you posted that and I know that you seek plausible deniability by referring to it as an opinion rather than a reactionary insult to challenges to your presumed authority on a subject. Whatever you choose to call it, it has no weight and is unwarranted personal attack that acts as another red flag here.

We Never Know · Jun 11, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
There you go again, with a claim of personal, direct knowledge that does not seem to flow through in your posts and you have gone to some length to avoid elaborating on. Have you conducted scientific experiments and written them up and submitted these for publication? Have you been through the peer review process in any way? These are simple questions that you should be able to answer regardless of the answer and they in no way identify your person. The answers to these questions neither support nor lead to a rejection of the points directly regarding peer review that you have made. I would also point out that I have not made any statements rejecting some of the cautions represented regarding peer review.

Having reviewers repeat work that has already been carried out is an unrealistic expectation that is not required in peer review nor is it necessary. To me, this speaks of someone that does not have an intimate knowledge of the process. This is OK. It is not required, but to allude to this level of experience when it does not exist is a problem.

And that's your opinion. As predicted my links weren't acceptable and my opinion was asked. I gave my opinion, which is from experience and it's also not acceptable. Why ask for links or my opinion when you deny both. Carry on Einstein, by your post you think you are more qualified and know more than many. Enjoy that BS.

We Never Know · Jun 13, 2019

Dan From Smithville said:
There you go again, with a claim of personal, direct knowledge that does not seem to flow through in your posts and you have gone to some length to avoid elaborating on. Have you conducted scientific experiments and written them up and submitted these for publication? Have you been through the peer review process in any way? These are simple questions that you should be able to answer regardless of the answer and they in no way identify your person. The answers to these questions neither support nor lead to a rejection of the points directly regarding peer review that you have made. I would also point out that I have not made any statements rejecting some of the cautions represented regarding peer review.

Having reviewers repeat work that has already been carried out is an unrealistic expectation that is not required in peer review nor is it necessary. To me, this speaks of someone that does not have an intimate knowledge of the process. This is OK. It is not required, but to allude to this level of experience when it does not exist is a problem.

And to clarify what I meant by "enjoy that BS", I was speaking of your education. At most a Bachelor of Science is all you have, if even that.

How reliable is peer review

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.

We Never Know

No Slack

We Never Know

No Slack