Peer-reviewed vs Preprint

[George K]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-science-moved-beyond-peer-review-during-the-pandemic/?ex_cid=538twitter

[Klaus]

Unfortunately this story suffers from the same misunderstanding that always seems to happen when the public press talks about peer review.

Peer review in isolation means nothing. You can publish arbitrary BS in "peer-reviewed" venues. It's a necessary, but not a sufficient, indicator of quality. BS venues have BS reviewers. A "peer" is not equal to a "peer".

[Loki]

Interesting piece, I thought it addressed some of Klaus concerns.

Here’s what worries me…. About 3.5 billion doses of Covid vaccine have been administered and yet enough people say it’s not safe based on talking points they got from people who literally know nothing about science. For them it’s irrelevant what research is done or whether their anecdote involves 1 person vs billions on the science side.

[Larry]

Huh...., I seem to remember back several years ago when I cited some climate scientists who explained why "man made global warming" was nonsense, that I was told in no uncertain terms that only peer reviewed writings could be believed. It was the gold standard I was told.... now the same one who told me that is saying peer reviewed is meaningless.....

How very interesting....

[Doctor Phibes]

This post is deleted!