Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Peer review is a flawed process

64 posts in this topic

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.wakingtimes.com/2013/02/18/a-flawed-process-is-at-the-heart-of-science-and-journal-publications/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let the shouting begin!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is indeed outdated not-working process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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.rsmjournals.com/content/99/4/178.full

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....?

;-)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peer review is utterly wrong.

.

'utterly wrong'??

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

Edited by shrooma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

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.

.

'utterly wrong'??

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

80-90% wrong to be exact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

have fun, you crazy kids!

Its against forum policy to insult Expandmymind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.org/wiki/Peer_review

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Source added. Please do not quote other web sites without providing a source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.