"Peer Reviewed"

[Doctor Phibes]

@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.

[Copper]

@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

[Rainman]

Thanks, Copper.
I've got new speakers, better than Mark's! (whatever he has)

[George K]

@Rainman said in "Peer Reviewed":

I've got new speakers, better than Mark's!

@kluurs laughed.

[Larry]

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]

@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 University some crappy college review the papers.

[Doctor Phibes]

All reporters aren't equal, either.

[Larry]

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.

[Klaus]

@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Most scientific works that are not peer-reviewed are BS.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.

[Larry]

No, I remember it like it was yesterday.