Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Peer review is a flawed process


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

#1    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:47 PM

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.

http://www.wakingtim...l-publications/

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#2    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 13,099 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power then humanity can evolve

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:49 PM

And let the shouting begin!


#3    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 09:54 PM

Peer review is indeed outdated not-working process.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#4    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,359 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:02 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

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.

http://www.wakingtim...l-publications/

Unfortunantly the paper you posted was very flawed.  I have had my papers peer reviewed and every single one of them was sent back for more data and editing.  It is the rule, not the exception as this paper makes it seem.


#5    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

View PostFurthurBB, on 25 February 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Unfortunantly the paper you posted was very flawed.  I have had my papers peer reviewed and every single one of them was sent back for more data and editing.  It is the rule, not the exception as this paper makes it seem.

Please FurtherBB save us from scientific propaganda and scientific dogma. We know how to read too. Unfortunatly to you this isnt only paper which indicate that peer review is bunch of BS.

Its rule that is BS. Exception when it works.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#6    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,046 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

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.

http://www.wakingtim...l-publications/

So, the problem is proposed that peer review is no longer effective.

May I ask what your solution(s) is/are?


#7    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 09:54 PM, said:

Peer review is indeed outdated not-working process.

I disagree with this statement. While the article brings up a few decent points, it fails to recognise the overwhelming benefits of the peer-review process. And the absolute necessity for the process. There is no alternative, and it is a process that has led to the incredible development of our species.

The Wisdom of Crowds (even smaller ones) is a powerful force.


#8    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:15 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

I disagree with this statement. While the article brings up a few decent points, it fails to recognise the overwhelming benefits of the peer-review process. And the absolute necessity for the process. There is no alternative, and it is a process that has led to the incredible development of our species.

The Wisdom of Crowds (even smaller ones) is a powerful force.

No matter did you disagree or not. Studies shows that peer review is bunch of BS. Especially British peer review. Again studies shows.
Because there is no alternative doesnt mean it works. Because it dont. And maybe we would find alternative if this hilarious thing wuth reviewers finally ends.
I dont respect that process not a tiny bit. Its redicule. Think big and stay small. Thats moto of peer review.
And in the end peer review have nothing to do with development of our species.Now thats incredible. That people can think that it have.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#9    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:21 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 25 February 2013 - 10:10 PM, said:

So, the problem is proposed that peer review is no longer effective.

May I ask what your solution(s) is/are?

You can ask ofcourse. But I dont know.
But Im sure humanity would find way. Maybe we need some kind of realy upgraded peer review.
Point is -that it doesnt work. So why to continue with it?
LOL-Lets stay with all mistake rather then hear new voice.
People who claim that peer review work are simply - Flatlanders.
But to answer on your question partly. Its similar with testing drugs on animals. If we banned it. Im sure we will found way to test it. Maybe even using computers. Humanity are creative spicies.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#10    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:27 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

No matter did you disagree or not. Studies shows that peer review is bunch of BS. Especially British peer review. Again studies shows.
Because there is no alternative doesnt mean it works. Because it dont. And maybe we would find alternative if this hilarious thing wuth reviewers finally ends.
I dont respect that process not a tiny bit. Its redicule. Think big and stay small. Thats moto of peer review.
And in the end peer review have nothing to do with development of our species.Now thats incredible. That people can think that it have.

You cannot dismiss an entire process due to bad apples in the bunch. All in, the peer review system works and it has led to the incredible scientific developments of our species, which in turn has led to our overall development. And not only this, but it has safeguarded the health and well being of us, due to dangerous methods and dangerous products being caught by the peer-review process.

One alternative would be crowd-sourced peer review (basically peer review on a larger scale).

I'll bow out, and let someone who has written and reviewed such papers to explain to you the benefits. But I doubt you will take anything on board, for it is clear you have entered this thread with the inability to change your mind, even though it appears you have a very limited knowledge of the view you are defending.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 25 February 2013 - 10:34 PM.


#11    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,601 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:30 PM

Anything human has its flaws. I dont really see a better solution though.

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami

#12    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Closed
  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:31 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

No matter did you disagree or not. Studies shows that peer review is bunch of BS. Especially British peer review. Again studies shows.

Just one more thing, may I ask, were these studies' results peer-reviewed? :D

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 25 February 2013 - 10:31 PM.


#13    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:41 PM

Well, reviewing your link , the L , i have to point out it is flawed since it leaves out a big part of what the actual author, actually wrote.

Here is one of the missing parts, of this biased article of yours that only sheds light on the negatives without solutions:

Quote

HOW TO IMPROVE PEER REVIEW?

The most important question with peer review is not whether to abandon it, but how to improve it. Many ideas have been advanced to do so, and an increasing number have been tested experimentally. The options include: standardizing procedures; opening up the process; blinding reviewers to the identity of authors; reviewing protocols; training reviewers; being more rigorous in selecting and deselecting reviewers; using electronic review; rewarding reviewers; providing detailed feedback to reviewers; using more checklists; or creating professional review agencies. It might be, however, that the best response would be to adopt a very quick and light form of peer review—and then let the broader world critique the paper or even perhaps rank it in the way that Amazon asks users to rank books and CDs.

http://jrsm.rsmjourn...t/99/4/178.full


#14    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:42 PM

ExpandMyMind

I can dismiss because its in purpose of surpression. And surpression might be common in religion and politics but not in science.
I dont know where you learn history of science but where Im from peer review has nothing to do with development of our species.
Expandmymind you dont understand. Peer review have one healthy apple among bad apples. Not other way around.
On alternatives I wont argue. But Im know for sure that peer review doesnt work. Ofcourse if you believe in studies and science. Isnt that hilarious. Humans are interesting.
Studies shows that peer reviews sucks yet science protect peer review as holy grail. Why? Its like we need a naive kid who will tell once for all: Look the emperor has no clothes!
I will link to you studies which show that peer review is utterly wrong asap. Your doubt will change when you read them unless you are one who entered this thread with inability to change your mind or unless you are ignorant or dont believe in science.

Even though you are one obviously who have not very limited knowledge on peer review but near to none.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#15    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:46 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 25 February 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

Just one more thing, may I ask, were these studies' results peer-reviewed? :D

Who cares?
I dont. Even they were. Also I would rather use logic.
You can doubt any research....Oh..they done it on small number of mouses....Mouses were in not comfortable enviroment...that cause them stress....

There are scientists and scientists. One who seek truth and others who prostitute for money for they next research.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users