How reliable is peer review

[Subduction Zone]

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

Yes, because it is a minimum standard. I debate creationists and they rely on articles that could never pass peer review. They use sources that are wrong 99% of the time or more. I even point out to them quite often that peer review does not guarantee an idea to be right. It only guarantees that it is not ridiculously wrong. Creationists on the other hand rely upon sources where one has to swear not to use the scientific method, and you know how that ends up.

 

[We Never Know]

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

All has already been covered.

 

[Audie]

Yes, because it is a minimum standard. I debate creationists and they rely on articles that could never pass peer review. They use sources that are wrong 99% of the time or more. I even point out to them quite often that peer review does not guarantee an idea to be right. It only guarantees that it is not ridiculously wrong. Creationists on the other hand rely upon sources where one has to swear not to use the scientific method, and you know how that ends up.

So do say ya dont crack it up to be somethin'.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

What???

 

[We Never Know]

Speaking of horse's and carts. I've got to go work my horses. G'day

 

[ChristineM]

All has already been covered.

I can see it has, have you taken notice though?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Wow, just about everything in that post is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See my last post

You mean the one that is almost fractally wrong?

 

[shunyadragon]

Feynman thought philosophy of science was idiotic he is correct. Nature determines not philosophy and he was very very firm on that. That guy was brilliant with a 129 IQ..

I made no reference to Feynman thought philosophy??? Though Feynman is one of best known physicists of the 20th century. My reference is the course 'Philosophy of Science.'

 

[We Never Know]

What???

It's pretty clear. If something can pass peer review and be published without repeating the tests and experiments until after its passed and published, peer review puts the cart before the horse.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's pretty clear. If something can pass peer review and be published without repeating the tests and experiments until after its passed and published, peer review puts the cart before the horse.

You obviously do not understand the process that has been explained to you. Peer review is simply one step in the process.

 

[shunyadragon]

Speaking of horse's and carts. I've got to go work my horses. G'day

Take your manure shovel and burlap bags.

 

[ChristineM]

It's pretty clear. If something can pass peer review and be published without repeating the tests and experiments until after its passed and published, peer review puts the cart before the horse.

Its clear you have no comprehension of what peer review is and you most obviously did not bother reading my post that you dismissed as already covered

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

I do not think that the work is actually reproduced by reviewers. They will analyze data, methods of collection, steps taken to minimize errors, and go over the conclusions. I don't think that the peers will necessarily have the time or funding to repeat experiments themselves. Once an idea is published when it is tested by scientists.

 

[We Never Know]

You obviously do not understand the process that has been explained to you. Peer review is simply one step in the process.

I understanding it completely. If something can pass peer review and be published before retesting and re-experimenting, how much stock can be put into a peer reviewed published articles.

I've all ready posted the graph as to what peer review consists of.

 

[We Never Know]

I do not think that the work is actually reproduced by reviewers. They will analyze data, methods of collection, steps taken to minimize errors, and go over the conclusions. I don't think that the peers will necessarily have the time or funding to repeat experiments themselves. Once an idea is published when it is tested by scientists.

Exactly! Winner winner chicken dinner.

 

[ChristineM]

I do not think that the work is actually reproduced by reviewers. They will analyze data, methods of collection, steps taken to minimize errors, and go over the conclusions. I don't think that the peers will necessarily have the time or funding to repeat experiments themselves. Once an idea is published when it is tested by scientists.

Peer review : evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field.

If that evaluation requires repeating the original proposal (it often does) then ....

 

[David T]

I made no reference to Feynman thought philosophy??? Though Feynman is one of best known physicists of the 20th century. My reference is the course 'Philosophy of Science.'

I referenced him!! In the game of expert chess where we use experts as pieces richard feynman is a queen!!! Although knowing feynman, from reading about him he would laugh at the analogy.

 

[David T]

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

Lol i was wondering. I am very very john muir like so i might be confused here in RF as a religious zealout but really i am zealous about nature itself.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understanding it completely. If something can pass peer review and be published before retesting and re-experimenting, how much stock can be put into a peer reviewed and published articles.

First, that is dependent on the reputation of the journal and the subject matter.

Second, If it is in my specialty Geology, geomorphology, and environmental sciences I always rely on multiple sources and do not take any one research article alone at face value. I do not believe any competent scientists would take any one research article at face value without referencing multiple sources.

I've all ready posted the graph as to what peer review consists of.

OK graph, so what?!?!? It is superficial and does not address the issue how peer review is integrated in science methods.

Peer review does not stand alone as the standard for judging the value, validity, repeatability, nor reproducibility of the research.