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

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice?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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, read if you can and use your reason.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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/

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.

.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :nw:

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

getting social with links

do we need to seduce the authors or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your cut/copy keys are stuck on repeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :st

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

It appears the only one here that's needs repetitive explanation is you. Re-read the thread and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Render you are ignorant. Not insult just recognition. I can proove you. But if i were you I wouldnt dig my hole deeper. Its deep enough, So I wouldnt ask for proof but rather read. I will repeat you: read!

edit: I understand you are angry. I hate to loose too.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"proove me" ? .. are you hitting on me Elly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Render I must ask you, sorry but are you talking with yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Render I must ask you, sorry but are you talking with yourself?

Man, you are harsh on yourself.

Are you trying to tell me you're non existent?

I kinda had a feeling you're a non factor.

Thanks for the confirmation.

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.