63 replies to this topic

[Render]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

have you bother to read what I link.

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

well thats a really lame attempt to answer

[the L]

Here it is for you who are lazy.

http://www.bmartin.c...t/documents/ss/

Render, on 25 February 2013 - 11:12 PM, said:

well thats a really lame attempt to answer

No. Those are facts.

[the L]

Lame is your ignorance on studies I provided, You need to get social with those links in order to continue your debate.

[Render]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Here it is for you who are lazy.

http://www.bmartin.c...t/documents/ss/



No. Those are facts.

Im asking you to form your own thoughts on a question ... but okay, nevermind. Go on your link posting extravaganza. Whatever will help you sleep at night eh.

[Swede]

the 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/

Other contributors (BB, Expand, Render, Spartan Max, Green) have already pointed out flaws in your interpretation of the article. You may wish to also spend a bit of time studying the source itself. While the source is "interesting", it hardly ranks as authoritative, nor is it unbiased.

As previously pointed out, though peer-review may not be absolutely perfect, it is generally a notable asset in regards to the presentation of accurate and credible research. It should also be noted that certain professions have a somewhat higher incidence of "malfeasance" in the peer-review process. Some rather recent studies have indicated that the medical field may be amongst the most prominent in this regard. And even at this, the percentages were quite low.

To grossly label the peer-review process in all fields of science as "BS" merely demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the research and publication processes. One can only hope that your professed interest in furthering your formal studies comes to fruition.

.

[the L]

Let me repeat this who have problems with reading:


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.



Or in numbers.

68%

2/3

That is your holy grail.

Edited by the L, 25 February 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[the L]

Swede what you need to do is  to get social with those links I provided in order to continue your debate.

[Render]

getting social with links
do we need to seduce the authors or what?

[the L]

Render, on 25 February 2013 - 11:23 PM, said:

getting social with links
do we need to seduce the authors or what?

If you like seducing smart mature males...It depends on you.


---


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

Priceless.

Edited by the L, 25 February 2013 - 11:27 PM.

[Render]

Your cut/copy keys are stuck on repeat.

[the L]

You can be ignorant and continue to live in your utopia or you can be indenpendent thinking person and finally start to belive in science.
But as Einstein told:
“Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds”


Whats hilarious is that you all so called men of science sudenly dont believe in studies.

Edited by the L, 25 February 2013 - 11:31 PM.

[the L]

Render, on 25 February 2013 - 11:28 PM, said:

Your cut/copy keys are stuck on repeat.

There is saying in my country. "Pametnome jednom dosta."
Translation: "To smart you need to tell only once."

[Render]

Your posts are hilarious to me and the point of this thread seems to be non existent.
The fact that you are repeatedly posting about mistakes that have been made, prove they have been found and corrected. Which is what science does.

So what's the point L, too much time on your hands?

[Swede]

the L, on 25 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

Swede what you need to do is  to get social with those links I provided in order to continue your debate.

"Get social"? Your references have been reviewed. No addendum to the previous points would appear to be necessary.

.

[the L]

Render, on 25 February 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

So what's the point L, too much time on your hands?

"To smart you need to tell only once." Sorry for copy pasting again but I just think that fits perfectly here, again.

Point is- Peer review is outdated and not working. If somehow you failed to understand it.