"Peer Reviewed"
-
With all due respect, I am without peer, and so cannot be reviewed.
wrote on 29 Nov 2020, 22:45 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 29 Nov 2020, 22:51 last edited by
Most people who have viewed me in all of my glory do not wish to repeat the experience.
-
wrote on 29 Nov 2020, 22:54 last edited by Mik
You don't have a peer? I always suspected as much, but wondered how you relieve yourself.
-
wrote on 29 Nov 2020, 23:10 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 29 Nov 2020, 23:50 last edited by
@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 -
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 00:16 last edited by
Thanks, Copper.
I've got new speakers, better than Mark's! (whatever he has) -
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 00:17 last edited by
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 00:18 last edited by
I can remember quite clearly when we went through a period where the argument was "your information isn't peer reviewed so it's worthless. It's only valid information if it's 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.
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 11:22 last edited by@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. -
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 12:17 last edited by
All reporters aren't equal, either.
-
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 14:32 last edited by
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.
-
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.
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 15:33 last edited by@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. -
wrote on 30 Nov 2020, 16:00 last edited by
No, I remember it like it was yesterday.