How reliable is peer review

[Subduction Zone]

Repeating someone post and saying one might have arrived isn't a personal attack.

Since you keep avoiding the question of "are you religious folk" I will answer for you. No you are not. Which clearly shows my post had nothing to do with you.

The only part of the post that caught your eye was "I think one might have just arrived" which you mistakenly thought was about you or you just wanted to argue as usual.

I think it's about time for me to ignore you as some of the others here have.

Have a hug and enjoy life more instead of being frumpy all the time

Then by the same standards my post was not a personal attack. Once again you do not apply the same standards towards others that you apply to yourself.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is the third time I've bought an expensive ceramique elephant, and it's been utterly destroyed by the playing of sports in the house.

 

[Audie]

This is the third time I've bought an expensive ceramique elephant, and it's been utterly destroyed by the playing of sports in the house.

Try bronze next time.

 

[We Never Know]

Then by the same standards my post was not a personal attack. Once again you do not apply the same standards towards others that you apply to yourself.

again you are wrong. You came in posted directly to me accusing me of projecting and not understanding because of a post you mistakenly thought was about you even though you aren't "religious folk" and it wasn't to you

Or you may just be projecting again. That happens with those that do not understand the sciences far too often.

 

[Subduction Zone]

again you are wrong. You came in posted directly to me accusing me of projecting and not understanding because of a post you mistakenly thought was about you even though you aren't "religious folk" and it wasn't to you

Please, whether aimed at me or another it was a personal attack.

 

[The Hammer]

Sure. The point is I've seen it voiced many times here that only peer reviewed links will be accepted as support. If peer review is highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused as the study says it is, how reliable is it?

As reliable as the American legal system. Not perfect, but the best we have at the moment.

 

[shmogie]

Not a bad article. I see many times in discussions here where it is voiced only peer reviewed links are acceptable. It also goes into ways to improve peer review. Granted the study is from 2006 but it still interesting. I posted one paragraph and the conclusion of the complete article/study. If you want to read more click the link.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

The defects of peer review.
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.

CONCLUSION
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Yep, my best friend, a well known microbiologist and full professor of biology at a prominent Ca. University, has had well over a hundred peer reviewed papers and articles published.

He gives wonderful insight into this process, and his experience with it. Lets just say it ain´t all itś cracked up to be.

 

[We Never Know]

It must have been on another page. Perhaps you should not be so vague in your claims. Though being vague is a way that those that are afraid to make a point will hide their fears. It gives them plausible deniability.

Let's go over this one more time. Peer review is not perfect. It is quite often wrong. Scientists know this. It is why peer reviewed articles are tested and retested. Controversial new ideas are tested countless times. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other system out there.

If you don't like peer review then you should see if you can improve it or think of some better method. The reason that peer review is the standard of supporting one's claims in scientific debates is not because it is "right", but because it is right far more often than ideas that cannot pass peer review.

Let me help you here. You act as if the peers repeat tests and experiments, they don't. Peer review doesn't involve testing, experiments and retesting, it involves the opinions of peers.
A paper is submitted, peers read it, they give their thought//reason/opinion of whether they agree or disagree. It is either accepted or passed back to the author for editing, resubmitted and repeat until it either denied or accepted. That is it.

The peer review process

 

[We Never Know]

As reliable as the American legal system. Not perfect, but the best we have at the moment.

As reliable as our legal system? That isn't saying much in my opinion

 

[Audie]

Yep, my best friend, a well known microbiologist and full professor of biology at a prominent Ca. University, has had well over a hundred peer reviewed papers and articles published.

He gives wonderful insight into this process, and his experience with it. Lets just say it ain´t all itś cracked up to be.

Dunno who cracks it up besides subzie, but, anyone
in academia knows it has its problems.

 

[We Never Know]

Moi? Now Thats funny. Now if you said John Muir That would be accurate. I am pretty sure fonts and math symbols dont determine much but i keep sitting right here with an eagle eye just in case one rolls in on the waves. I could be wrong.
View attachment 29703

Sorry I just saw this. No not you. There was a poster that popped in then popped back out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me help you here. You act as if the peers repeat tests and experiments, they don't. Peer review doesn't involve testing, experiments and retesting, it involves the opinions of peers.
A paper is submitted, peers read it, they give their thought//reason/opinion of whether they agree or disagree. It is either accepted or passed back to the author for editing, resubmitted and repeat until it either denied or accepted. That is it.

The peer review process

No, I never said that or implied that. You badly misinterpreted a post. I don't know how you came to such a wrong conclusion. Let me make it clearer for you, other scientists test peer reviewed articles after they are published. There is no way that they can be part of the publishing process. They are part of the process that determines whether the article is correct or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dunno who cracks it up besides subzie, but, anyone
in academia knows it has its problems.

Wait a second. When did I ever say or imply that peer review is without problems? You normally do not make such bad errors. If you read my earlier posts I said that it was not perfect.

 

[We Never Know]

No, I never said that or implied that. You badly misinterpreted a post. I don't know how you came to such a wrong conclusion. Let me make it clearer for you, other scientists test peer reviewed articles after they are published. There is no way that they can be part of the publishing process. They are part of the process that determines whether the article is correct or not.

It must have been on another page. Perhaps you should not be so vague in your claims. Though being vague is a way that those that are afraid to make a point will hide their fears. It gives them plausible deniability.

Let's go over this one more time. Peer review is not perfect. It is quite often wrong. Scientists know this. It is why peer reviewed articles are tested and retested. Controversial new ideas are tested countless times. It is not perfect, but it is better than any other system out there.

If you don't like peer review then you should see if you can improve it or think of some better method. The reason that peer review is the standard of supporting one's claims in scientific debates is not because it is "right", but because it is right far more often than ideas that cannot pass peer review.

See the red. If you had meant after its passed peer review and already been published, maybe you should have stated so.

Testing and retesting it after its been peer reviewed, passed peer review and published is worthless to peer review.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See the red. If you had meant after its passed peer review and already been published, maybe you should have stated so.

Testing and retesting it after its been peer reviewed, passed peer review and published is worthless to peer review.

Yes, scientists test and retest ideas in peer reviewed articles. That should have been obvious. One cannot test an article until after it has been published. Should I face palm your obvious error? You are acting as if peer review was the final word. It clearly is not. You ignored the part before the red that would have told you that your interpretation was wrong.

One more time, peer review is not perfect. As stated in the post you copied and pasted. Scientist know this. That is why scientists test and retest peer reviewed ideas. Please note, one cannot have a "peer reviewed idea" until after it has been peer reviewed and published. Otherwise one has an idea that is undergoing peer review.

 

[ChristineM]

Sure. The point is I've seen it voiced many times here that only peer reviewed links will be accepted as support. If peer review is highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused as the study says it is, how reliable is it?

I take if you do not understand peer review. Lets go from the start.
A scientist has an idea and writes a hypothesis.
Next they experiment, measure and observe.
They document each process and repeat several times.
Only if they get consistent results do they write a paper detailing precisely the method used to obtain the result they obtained.
The paper is sent for peer review.
Several scientists (peers) will preform precisely the same experiment, measure and observation and compare their result with the result published by the fist scientist.
Only if each scientist obtains precisely the same result does the paper pass peer review.
If any fail to obtain the same result then the paper fails, and the original scientist will either attempt to find what went wrong and why or scrap the whole idea.

Is it perfect? No... Could be that the original work is so esoteric that no other scientist is able to review it.
Is it the best and most accurate way available of checking a method? Yes.
Can it be manipulated? Difficult, the original scientist most probably has no clue who is reviewing his work.
Is it reliable? As reliable as the human beings carrying out the review. These people have spent their working lives in accuracy and have a vested interest in precision work

 

[Audie]

Wait a second. When did I ever say or imply that peer review is without problems? You normally do not make such bad errors. If you read my earlier posts I said that it was not perfect.

Just that you is always bringing up peer review, ya swab.

 

[ChristineM]

See the red. If you had meant after its passed peer review and already been published, maybe you should have stated so.

Testing and retesting it after its been peer reviewed, passed peer review and published is worthless to peer review.

Nope, even after peer review a subsequent failure can render the project in question.

This is particularly valid in the medical sciences

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, scientists test and retest ideas in peer reviewed articles. That should have been obvious. One cannot test an article until after it has been published. Should I face palm your obvious error? You are acting as if peer review was the final word. It clearly is not. You ignored the part before the red that would have told you that your interpretation was wrong.

One more time, peer review is not perfect. As stated in the post you copied and pasted. Scientist know this. That is why scientists test and retest peer reviewed ideas. Please note, one cannot have a "peer reviewed idea" until after it has been peer reviewed and published. Otherwise one has an idea that is undergoing peer review.

Your not helping your cause any. You've already admitted to pass peer review and be published doesn't rely on repeating test or experiments.

So what does that say about peer reviewed and published articles? It says they aren't tested until they pass peer review and are published which makes peer review putting the cart before the horse.

 

[We Never Know]

Nope, even after peer review a subsequent failure can render the project in question.

This is particularly valid in the medical sciences

See my last post