Peer-reviewed
-
The paper trail is important for purposes other than the review process. Seems reasonable to take as an article of faith that they say what they purport to say.
It’s mostly nonsense anyway. Most papers are not reproducible.
-
I chose a JAMA paper at random.
The references look suspicious to me.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2533698
This guy has 68 references. Nobody is going to check all that.
They are probably mostly fake.
-
Well I’m a peer reviewer for a couple of journals. And I do check references. Not all of course but certainly ones that are critical.
I once specifically rejected a manuscript when I found a reference that said the opposite of what was referenced.
I also check to see if claims like “to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time blah blah blah” to see if that’s really true.
And I certainly check to see if there are publications which make the same point but with better data.
Peer reviewing is important, I learn a helluva lot when I review and it helps me anticipate question from reviewers on my papers. And I get really pissed off when I sense a reviewer rejected without really making an honest effort at understanding the paper.
-
I don't know about medicine, but when I'm assigned to review a paper in my area of expertise, I usually don't need to look up reference s because I have already read those papers and remember the main results.
@Klaus said in Peer-reviewed:
I don't know about medicine, but when I'm assigned to review a paper in my area of expertise, I usually don't need to look up reference s because I have already read those papers and remember the main results.
Yeah, but your field is so narrow....
-
I have an 11 month old peer. Time to change his diaper. I don’t understand why you guys want him to read scientific and medical papers, though.
