"Peer Reviewed"
-
@Klaus said in "Peer Reviewed":
Nobody except people who have no clue whatsoever about scientific work would think that peer review guarantees quality. All quality publication venues are peer reviewed, but by no means all peer-reviewed venues have high quality.
This.
Experts in a field know what the top 5 or 10 publication venues in that field are. Publications in those venues are what counts; the remainder is more or less just noise.
The problem is that "reporters" can't distinguish, or are ignorant of what the good journals are, and they use "peer-reviewed" as an imprimatur of quality and fact.
@George-K said in "Peer Reviewed":
The problem is that "reporters" can't distinguish, or are ignorant of what the good journals are, and they use "peer-reviewed" as an imprimatur of quality and fact.
I'd say that merely illustrates that the intersection part of the Reporter-and-Idiots Venn diagram isn't empty.
It isn't very hard to find out whether a publication venue is reputable or not.
For instance, enter your favorite subject area here to find a list of journals that are usually at least decent in that area.
Sometimes one gets bogus results, but it's way better than relying on the "peer-reviewed" label and only takes 20 seconds. -
This is similar to what Peter Boghossian, Lindsey, and Pluckrose did. They concocted nonsense and submitted to the "-studies" journals to see what would happen.
The point is not that nonsense should be dismissed by those that know better. The point is, or was, that these "-studies" disciplines publish crap, then that is cited as being authoritative, as long as it is plausible. The end result is their infection of nonsense creeps through academia and into the classroom.
Maybe it's a part of pop-culture or something. Or, maybe such disciplines such as "queer studies" majors need something, anything, to push their viability at the expense of science, which is of course a remnant of white patriarchy (/sarc). I was not bothered when World Music came into the college curriculum. I was bothered when it became equal to, if not superior to, Western Music. Yeah well, checkers is equal to chess, too. Note to Ax: I don't mean all world music from everywhere, it's certainly an area of legitimate study.
-
@George-K said in "Peer Reviewed":
The problem is that "reporters" can't distinguish, or are ignorant of what the good journals are, and they use "peer-reviewed" as an imprimatur of quality and fact.
I'd say that merely illustrates that the intersection part of the Reporter-and-Idiots Venn diagram isn't empty.
It isn't very hard to find out whether a publication venue is reputable or not.
For instance, enter your favorite subject area here to find a list of journals that are usually at least decent in that area.
Sometimes one gets bogus results, but it's way better than relying on the "peer-reviewed" label and only takes 20 seconds. -
With all due respect, I am without peer, and so cannot be reviewed.
-
With all due respect, I am without peer, and so cannot be reviewed.
@Doctor-Phibes said in "Peer Reviewed":
I am without peer, and so cannot be reviewed.
True, and true.
Not necessarily good, of course.
But, true.
-
Most people who have viewed me in all of my glory do not wish to repeat the experience.
-
You don't have a peer? I always suspected as much, but wondered how you relieve yourself.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Mik said in "Peer Reviewed":
You don't have a peer? I always suspected as much, but wondered how you relieve yourself.
There are people queueing up to take the piss out of me.
-
@Mik said in "Peer Reviewed":
You don't have a peer? I always suspected as much, but wondered how you relieve yourself.
Try this one
The hair on the back of the neck should stand
Link to video -
@Klaus said in "Peer Reviewed":
Nobody except people who have no clue whatsoever about scientific work would think that peer review guarantees quality. All quality publication venues are peer reviewed, but by no means all peer-reviewed venues have high quality.
This.
Experts in a field know what the top 5 or 10 publication venues in that field are. Publications in those venues are what counts; the remainder is more or less just noise.
The problem is that "reporters" can't distinguish, or are ignorant of what the good journals are, and they use "peer-reviewed" as an imprimatur of quality and fact.
@George-K said in "Peer Reviewed":
The problem is that "reporters" can't distinguish, or are ignorant of what the good journals are, and they use "peer-reviewed" as an imprimatur of quality and fact.
Also, an obvious fact that seems to be unknown to some reporters is that not all "peers" are equal. Prestigious venues will have the best people in the field review the papers. A low quality venue will have the Facebook friend of a niece of a friend of somebody who used to be a PhD student at
Trump Universitysome crappy college review the papers. -
All reporters aren't equal, either.
-
Actually Klaus, you were the one that scolded me the most by demanding that I provide peer reviewed evidence to back up what is said, and told me if something wasn't peer reviewed it was worthless.
@Larry said in "Peer Reviewed":
Actually Klaus, you were the one that scolded me the most by demanding that I provide peer reviewed evidence to back up what is said, and told me if something wasn't peer reviewed it was worthless.
Hu? I highly doubt it.
The weather report isn't peer-reviewed. That doesn't make it worthless.
Most scientific works that are not peer-reviewed are BS. But many "peer-reviewed" papers are BS, too. Do you understand the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" I lined out above?
Here's a simple flow chart for you:
Peer reviewed? --> Yes --> maybe bullshit, maybe not, need to investigate further.
--> No ---> most likely bullshit, no need to investigate further.
