How reliable is peer review

[We Never Know]

There is no such method. It's a idealized generalization used for explanatory purpose only. There are no peer reviewed papers validating the scientific method. Science is what scientists do in universities and research center's. Scientists are never given any course on "The scientific method" as there is no such thing.

No scientific method?

Hmmm... Since the 17th century, the scientific method has been the gold standard for investigating the natural world. It is how scientists correctly arrive at new knowledge, and update their previous knowledge. It consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've seen several like that here. You are invited to read the article and refute its points and I never claimed non-peer reviewed articles are correct in their information.

Please cite the problems specifically where they reference science from well established scientific journals, and peer reviewed articles like Nature and American Science..

 

[sayak83]

Well, not only. Lots of med research is bad, the linked
article was from a med journal. And no doubt some
ill considered stuff gets out in chemistry and physics too.

In the event, your observation is true, that if bad data
is published-and the topic is of any interest or relevance
to anyone, which i likely will never be- then the problem
will come out before long.

Lots of paper are wrong, obviously.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes the links used here should be from only reputable sources, but it remains that like in all science research used in references should be subject to rebutal and reputable sources from scientific sources when your dealing with science.

When the debates involve Social Sciences, Politics, and Theology and Philosophy I can see many problems when selectively used as references in supporting arguments here. In the basic sciences of Biology, Chemistry, Geology, and Physics the only problem I see is misrepresentation of science by those with a religious agenda or a bias against good science.

I would like to see examples of problems of citations from the main reputable science journals concerning peer review, and flawed research where cited here on RF.

I would suggest reading the study and it references/sources

 

[shunyadragon]

Uhm no. That would be the scientific method which peer review isn't a part of.

Peer review is most definitely a part of the scientific methods to confirm the predictability, and reliability of scientific research.

 

[Audie]

I've seen several like that here. You are invited to read the article and refute its points and I never claimed non-peer reviewed articles are correct in their information.

I am not going to refute points made, any more than
you are going to refute my Ms Universe points. I have
read a number of articles on peer review, and am
like anyone who has studied the sciences, well aware
or them.

As for your "seen several" I dont believe you.

I never claimed non-peer reviewed articles are correct in their information

Nor did I suggest that you did. You are responding to things
not said, and avoiding what was said.

 

[shunyadragon]

Lots of paper are wrong, obviously.

The sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July.

 

[sayak83]

No scientific method?

Hmmm... Since the 17th century, the scientific method has been the gold standard for investigating the natural world. It is how scientists correctly arrive at new knowledge, and update their previous knowledge. It consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses.

No. It's something the philosopher's have come up with for their own philosophical ruminations about science.
Please find me a university course on "The scientific method" in a science department in any leading university in the world.

 

[We Never Know]

Please cite the problems specifically where they reference science from well established scientific journals, and peer reviewed articles like Nature and American Science..

You might start here. I posted the link that has all reference/sources. It's all there for further in depth reviews by the reader if they choose so.

Quoted by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and duly supported:

References
1. Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review In Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust, 1985
2. Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;287: 2784-6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280: 237-40 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;328: 673. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Wennerås C, Wold A. Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature 1997;387: 341-3 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Peters D, Ceci S. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982;5: 187-255 [Google Scholar]
7. McIntyre N, Popper K. The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics. BMJ 1983;287: 1919-23 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Horton R. Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews. Lancet 1997; 349: 6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2003: 118-29
10. McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA 1990;263: 1371-6 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 1998;280: 240-2 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA 1998;280: 234-7 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ 1999;318: 23-7 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

 

[shunyadragon]

No scientific method?

Hmmm... Since the 17th century, the scientific method has been the gold standard for investigating the natural world. It is how scientists correctly arrive at new knowledge, and update their previous knowledge. It consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses.

. . . and the constant review, repetition, and confirmation of previous research, which peer review is only a part of the process.

 

[We Never Know]

No. It's something the philosopher's have come up with for their own philosophical ruminations about science.
Please find me a university course on "The scientific method" in a science department in any leading university in the world.

The scientific method is a process, not a course.

 

[Audie]

No scientific method?

Hmmm... Since the 17th century, the scientific method has been the gold standard for investigating the natural world. It is how scientists correctly arrive at new knowledge, and update their previous knowledge. It consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiment, and the formulation of questions or hypotheses.

I would suggest reading the post to which your are
supposedly responding.

 

[We Never Know]

. . . and the constant review, repetition, and confirmation of previous research, which peer review is only a part of the process.

Peer review isn't part of the scientific method. Peer reviewed is used for publication, not validity.

 

[shunyadragon]

No. It's something the philosopher's have come up with for their own philosophical ruminations about science.
Please find me a university course on "The scientific method" in a science department in any leading university in the world.

Many if not most major universities cover this topic in the 'Philosophy of science.' I took such a course.

https://www2.bc.edu/daniel-j-mckaughan/assets/mckaughan---philosophy-of-science-(syllabus).pdf

 

[We Never Know]

I would suggest reading the post to which your are
supposedly responding.

I did. Maybe you should read the post that reply was posted to

 

[Audie]

Peer review isn't part of the scientific method. Peer reviewed is used for publication, not validity.

Looks like it is time to leave you to talk to yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

Looks like it is time to leave you to talk to yourself.

Bye bye

 

[sayak83]

Many if not most major universities cover this topic in the 'Philosophy of science.' I took such a course.

https://www2.bc.edu/daniel-j-mckaughan/assets/mckaughan---philosophy-of-science-(syllabus).pdf

Yes...in philosophy. That's my point.

 

[shunyadragon]

Peer review isn't part of the scientific method. Peer reviewed is used for publication, not validity.

Whole heartedly disagree, as well as most scientific researchers.

From: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/sense-about-science/#

Peer review is fundamental to the scientific process
Insights from a Sense about Science peer review workshop
We’ve been supporting Sense about Science’s work on peer review for some time, including sponsoring their ‘Nuts and bolts of peer review’ workshop. To give you an insight into what researchers can gain from these workshops, we asked one attendee to tell us what they thought afterwards.

What’s a ‘Nuts and Bolts of Peer Review’ workshop all about?
By Scott Nicholson

Every day I am p resented with claims relating to research. Some are in the free newspaper on my commute to work, some are on my social media timeline while I am having my coffee break, while others are the findings reported in scholarly journals, which help steer the direction of my own research. The question is, how do I know which claims to believe?

After attending an event training scientists to stand up for science in the media, held by the charity Sense about Science, I became a member of the Voice of Young Science network and was intrigued when I saw the advertisement for their ”Peer Review: The Nuts & Bolts” workshop. As an early career researcher, being able to make sense of scientific claims is not merely a case of whether or not I should pay extra for an organic apple but is fundamental to my career.

The fundamentals of peer review
The workshop began with publisher, Malavika Legge, describing peer review as the system that is used to assess the quality of scientific research before it is published. She explained that researchers in the same field scrutinise research papers for validity, significance and originality to help editors assess whether they should be published in their journal.

Some group work followed this, in which teams of early career researchers listed the strengths, weaknesses and possible alternatives to peer review. The strengths seemed to focus on the principle of the validation that the scrutiny process provides. However, the weaknesses focused on the practice of peer review, including fraud, reviewer bias and the speed of the process.

During discussion regarding alternatives to peer review; it soon became clear that peer review was fundamental to the scientific process. The next speaker, Professor Sergio Della Sala, did provide an alternative process in which research questions and methods were peer reviewed, rather than completed research papers. He claimed this could reduce the quantity of poor quality research and the incentives to falsify exciting findings.

The reviewer’s role
Professor Martijn Steultjens (of Glasgow Caledonian University) went on to explain the behind-the-scenes aspects, from his perspective as a reviewer. He explained that following submission of the paper to a journal, an editor initially screens it and either rejects the paper or searches for experts to review the work. An editor selects reviewers they have used before or by following a literature search within the field, but often the references of a paper are a good place to find a reviewer. Professor Steultjens said that reviewing a paper takes him half a day and involves a process of trying to get to grips with the backbone and then the detail of the paper. He told the workshop that he then decides to reject or ask the author to make revisions. He has never accepted a paper without revisions and he himself has never had a paper accepted without revisions.

What researchers can gain from getting involved
At the end of the workshop Victoria Murphy, from Sense about Science, highlighted that it was really important for early career researchers to get involved in peer review as it allows them to develop their own research and writing skills, as well as encouraging them to look at their work objectively.

I enjoyed the workshop and left with an understanding that reviewing other researchers’ work will be as important in my career as publishing my own. I will now not get upset if a paper is not accepted without revisions. Most importantly, I now appreciate the importance of a public understanding of peer review, and people that follow me on social media received a 140 character explanation of peer review (sandwiched between the usual stream of research claims).

Scott Nicholson is a final year PhD student researching rheumatoid arthritis at the University of the West of Scotland.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes...in philosophy. That's my point.

Not a good point. I was a science major, and the course was required in my major.