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.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Repeating yourself isn't refuting anything. And sadly you can't even address the post.
Already done many times already in this thread and the other anti-science threads posted by other baffouns, Your questions have already specifically addressed.
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.
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.nothing of substance but unsupported claims again.
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.
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..
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.
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.
Good place to hide incompetence.
In return the internet is a good place to claim to be what the poster wants to be.
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.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.
In return the internet is a good place to claim to be what the poster wants to be.
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.