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

#16    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:47 PM

View PostRender, on 25 February 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

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:



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

This might me flawed article. But idea is totaly in right place.

Peer review is utterly wrong.
Think big stay small. :tu:

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..."

#17    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,313 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:48 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
.
doubtful.
but anyone with more than an ounce of sense wouldn't put much credence in an alternative medicine website slating the BMJ really.
.
or would they....?
;-)

"The 'great' British public, they don't understand- 'why should there be riots in this 'civilised' land?'
'why is this country being brought to its knees?'
because ignorance, is the British disease."

#18    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,313 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:52 PM

View Postthe L, on 25 February 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:





Peer review is utterly wrong.

.
'utterly wrong'??
there's a BIG difference between 'flawed', and 'utterly wrong' L.

Edited by shrooma, 25 February 2013 - 10:53 PM.

"The 'great' British public, they don't understand- 'why should there be riots in this 'civilised' land?'
'why is this country being brought to its knees?'
because ignorance, is the British disease."

#19    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:54 PM

View Postshrooma, on 25 February 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

.
doubtful.


Ofcourse you doubt because British see peer review as their holy grail. No offence and dont take it on national level. Its scientificly prooven. You will get link ASAP.

View Postshrooma, on 25 February 2013 - 10:52 PM, said:

.
'utterly wrong'??
there's a BIG difference between 'flawed', and 'utterly wrong' L.

80-90% wrong to be exact.

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..."

#20    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 10:55 PM

I'm sorry, L, it would be impossible for me to continue with this pseudo-debate without insulting you for many different reasons, all based around your method of reasoning and 'debating', and all directed at your intelligence.

So, good luck with all future endevours, and remember not to play in traffic.

Edited by ExpandMyMind, 25 February 2013 - 10:56 PM.


#21    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:00 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 25 February 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

...

If your methods were different I would act different.

Here is song for you. Althoug I must say that Im surprised that you are fearfull person. Protecting your utopia from melting can be painfull.



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..."

#22    shrooma

shrooma

    Needs an exorcist, not a shrink....

  • Member
  • 3,313 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:00 PM

View PostExpandMyMind, on 25 February 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

I'm sorry, L, it would be impossible for me to continue with this pseudo-debate without insulting you for many different reasons, all based around your method of reasoning and 'debating', and all directed at your intelligence.

So, good luck with all future endevours, and remember not to play in traffic.
.
me too.
only I wouldn't have been so diplomatic.
.
have fun, you crazy kids!

"The 'great' British public, they don't understand- 'why should there be riots in this 'civilised' land?'
'why is this country being brought to its knees?'
because ignorance, is the British disease."

#23    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:02 PM

View Postshrooma, on 25 February 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:


.
have fun, you crazy kids!

Its against forum policy to insult Expandmymind.

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..."

#24    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:04 PM

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarks,

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

Source: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Peer_review

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 26 February 2013 - 12:40 AM.
Source added. Please do not quote other web sites without providing a source.

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..."

#25    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report

http://www.eurekaler...u-bse081204.php

It does not work as outsiders seem to think


http://www.independe...cle.asp?id=1963

Search online book: Suppression Stories by Brian Martin

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..."

#26    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:08 PM

http://www.guardian....ice?INTCMP=SRCH


Fraud are threatening science
The Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel was found to have published fabricated data in 30 peer-reviewed papers.

"Outright fraud is somewhat impossible to estimate, because if you're really good at it you wouldn't be detectable," said Simonsohn, a social psychologist. "It's like asking how much of our money is fake money – we only catch the really bad fakers, the good fakers we never catch."

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..."

#27    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

Who Reviews the Reviewers?

Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results.

Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript.

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..."

#28    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:09 PM

so, the L, have you bothered by reading the results of the "studies" to improve peer review?

Blinding reviewers to the identity of authors

Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews.


Opening up peer review

It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions.
Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion.

Training reviewers

The overall result was that training made little difference.4




Meaning, most reviewers actually review the paper based on what is written in it. Not biased or anything.
The rest is just an author venting frustrations about his workplace experience.


Edited by Render, 25 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.


#29    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

Now, read if you can and use your reason.

Edited by the L, 25 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.

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..."

#30    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

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

Posted 25 February 2013 - 11:11 PM

View PostRender, on 25 February 2013 - 11:09 PM, said:

so, the L, have you bothered by reading the results of the "studies" to improve peer review?

Blinding reviewers to the identity of authors

Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews.


Opening up peer review

It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions.
Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion.

Training reviewers

The overall result was that training made little difference.4




Meaning, most reviewers actually review the paper based on what is written in it. Not biased or anything.
The rest is just an author venting frustrations about his workplace experience.


have you bother to read what I link.

let me help you. Read post 27. Then reply.

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