How reliable is peer review

[shunyadragon]

Try addressing the post and refuting its content.

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

Like this post that shows it's biased and flawed by passing papers first time around but when the names were changed they didn't pass 90% of what they already passed and said the articles had "serious methodological flaws." That's funny because they had already passed them lol.

Imagine that. The papers passed peer review and then the researchers altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers and even though it was the same data and results, 90% failed the second time around.

The idea behind peer review is simple: It's supposed to weed out bad science. Peer reviewers read over promising studies that have been submitted to a journal to help gauge whether they should be published or need changes. Ideally, reviewers are experts in fields related to the studies in question. They add helpful comments, point out problems and holes, or simply reject flawed papers that shouldn't see the light of day.

The two researchers, Douglas Peters and Stephen Ceci, wanted to test how reliable and unbiased this process actually is. To do this, they selected 12 papers that had been published about two to three years earlier in extremely selective American psychology journals.

The researchers then altered the names and university affiliations on the journal manuscripts and resubmitted the papers to the same journal. In theory, these papers should have been high quality — they'd already made it into these prestigious publications. If the process worked well, the studies that were published the first time would be approved for publication again the second time around.

What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."

Let's stop pretending peer review works - Vox

 

[shunyadragon]

Like this post that shows it's biased and flawed by passing peppers but when the names were changed they didn't pass 90% of what they already passed and said the articles had "serious methodological flaws." That's funny because they had already passed them lol.

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti-science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

You keep posting you're a scientist. In my opinion a scientist would admit it has flaws, is sometimes biased, etc and would want it better by fixing the problems.

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti-science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

Repeating yourself isn't refuting anything. And sadly you can't even address the post.

 

[shunyadragon]

You keep posting you're a scientist. In my opinion a scientist would admit it has flaws, is sometimes biased, etc and would want it better by fixing the problems.

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

One of the problems is that you have failed to honestly admit you are not a scientist, nor have you done any research, dealt with peer review.

 

[shunyadragon]

Repeating yourself isn't refuting anything. And sadly you can't even address the post.

I need not do anything else, because your not even a scientist, all the issues have been addressed by others more qualified than you including myself. I have been involved with research, publication and peer review..

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti-science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

At least address this.

What do you think about passing papers the first go around, only changing names and the peers that passed them then failed 90% of them even going as far as saying they serious methodological flaws?

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

One of the problems is that you have failed to honestly admit you are not a scientist, nor have you done any research, dealt with peer review.

False claim. You don't anything about me and I'm don't feel the need to tell you about me. Heck everyone on the internet is a scientists or what ever they want to be. You can't refute the studies.
I'm done if all you are going to do is make false claims and not address or refute the linked studies.
You act as if you have more faith in peer review that creationists have in the bible. You may have which is why you feel it's an attack in what you think is a golden rule and set in stone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

nothing of substance but unsupported claims again.

Wrong as usual. You go out of your way not to understand. For some reason you have a cognitive dissonance problem at times. I explained your errors as did others.

 

[shunyadragon]

False claim. You don't anything about me and I'm don't feel the need to tell you about me. Heck everyone on the internet is a scientists or what ever they want to be. You can't refute the studies.
I'm done if all you are going to do is make false claims and not address or refute the linked studies.
You act as if you have more faith in peer review that creationists have in the bible. You may have which is why you feel it's an attack in what you think is a golden rule and set in stone.

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

One of the problems is that you have failed to honestly admit you are not a scientist, nor have you done any research, dealt with peer review.

I can reference my published publications.

 

[We Never Know]

I need not do anything else, because your not even a scientist, all the issues have been addressed by others more qualified than you including myself. I have been involved with research, publication and peer review..

Attack the poster while ignoring and not refuting the linked studies.

You may or not be a scientists. Repeating it over and over like your bragging really gives me doubt.

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

One of the problems is that you have failed to honestly admit you are not a scientist, nor have you done any research, dealt with peer review.

I can reference my published publications.

Sure thing.
This is an anonymous forum and I will remain that way.

 

[We Never Know]

Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti'science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.

One of the problems is that you have failed to honestly admit you are not a scientist, nor have you done any research, dealt with peer review.

I can reference my published publications.

Careful now. You're boarding what is known as green ink posts. I think that's what it's called. I would have to look and refresh my memory.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure thing.
This is an anonymous forum and I will remain that way.

Good place to hide incompetence.

 

[We Never Know]

Good place to hide incompetence.

In return the internet is a good place to claim to be what the poster wants to be.

 

[shunyadragon]

In return the internet is a good place to claim to be what the poster wants to be.

Huh . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

You keep posting you're a scientist. In my opinion a scientist would admit it has flaws, is sometimes biased, etc and would want it better by fixing the problems.

Admitting flaws is not the issue. I have been here on RF a long time, and have an excellent reputation as a scientist and accurately citing scientific references. On the other hand all you have shown is your incompetence and anti-science agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

In return the internet is a good place to claim to be what the poster wants to be.

My name is Frank A. Doonan 611 Harper Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278, (919) 923-7803, shunyadragon@gmail,com. I will not be anonymous, and my resume and references are available upon request.

 

[We Never Know]

Admitting flaws is not the issue. I have been here on RF a long time, and have an excellent reputation as a scientist and accurately citing scientific references. On the other hand all you have shown is your incompetence and anti-science agenda.

Two years isn't a long time.

As a self claimed scientist you should know peer review is flawed, biased, etc.

You haven't refuted any linked study I have posted. You've complained, gave your opinion and gave personal attacks but you have not refuted any of the studies I've linked which as a scientists you should be refuting them instead of complaining.