• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Peer review; why it isn't a proof against bad science.

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,706
Likes
3,830
#1
I'm a member of a private sports board that had a forum for political discussions. Several of the people who are members are in the Academic community...as professors and in other roles. They are all extremely progressive, and militantly so.

During one discussion, one of them who is employed by a very prestigious university in the "research triangle" of NC posted this:

Peer review is a voluntary, unpaid exercise. You know the old saying, you get what you pay for. People who do peer review wait 'til the last minute and often do a half-assed job. They squeeze it in while waiting at the airport or on a plane or while sitting in a meeting (yes, I'm guilty of this).​

This same guy has debated me for literally decades about climate change and how the science is flawless because of PEER REVIEWED research and publications.
 

Howdy

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
1,005
Likes
1,149
#2
People who do "peer reviews" do not necessarily give fair and balanced reviews just because they are paid well or spend enough time preparing the reviews. PEOPLE HAVE AGENDAS. A "disinterested third party" is rare indeed, and you seldom have any way of knowing if they're disinterested or not.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,605
Likes
7,885
Location
State of Jefferson
#3
Within my workplace, peer reviewing is critical prior to embarking on small and large projects with potential service effects.

Within the academic community, and especially the medical community, peer reviewing is a just a credibility catch-phrase.


YMMV
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,898
Likes
4,859
Location
Michiana
#4
Peer review is a farkin' joke. Here I am speaking of scientific and in particular medical peer review. Well over 80% of results and findings can neither be duplicated or substantiated. Stop and think about that...80%. Why would anybody trust any medical practitioner or "scientific findings or justifications" for ANYTHING?!?

Here's a fun place to start...be sure to check the links in the article:

Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless - Reason.com
 

Zed

Size doesn't count!
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,493
Likes
8,862
Location
Springfield
#5
I'm a member of a private sports board that had a forum for political discussions. Several of the people who are members are in the Academic community...as professors and in other roles. They are all extremely progressive, and militantly so.

During one discussion, one of them who is employed by a very prestigious university in the "research triangle" of NC posted this:

Peer review is a voluntary, unpaid exercise. You know the old saying, you get what you pay for. People who do peer review wait 'til the last minute and often do a half-assed job. They squeeze it in while waiting at the airport or on a plane or while sitting in a meeting (yes, I'm guilty of this).​

This same guy has debated me for literally decades about climate change and how the science is flawless because of PEER REVIEWED research and publications.
Peer review sucks ass, if we if we relied on it the earth would still be flat! Long live the mavericks and the independent thinkers! Committees discover fuckall that's original.

That's the Australian perspective but we are a little bit rude.