Peer Review Tyranny

This thread is a continuation of an issue raised on the “Ask any question you want about Physics” thread:

originally posted by: Mary Rose

DVDs are superb educational tools. They also allow people who are shut out by mainstream science, with their peer review tyranny, to communicate with the world.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The purpose of this thread is: What do I mean by "peer review tyranny" and what effect does it have on science and technology?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On the face of it, peer review is a good idea. We want quality control.

However, the reality is, politics is involved, and things get very complicated in a hurry.

I was certain ATS has explored this topic, so I did a search and came up with some good representations of what constitutes what I call peer review tyranny:

From the thread “Is Peer Review an enemy of Progress?” in the Education and Media forum:

originally posted by: ProfEmeritus

. . . there are works/papers that were rejected by peer review that ended up winning the Nobel Prize (Krebs Cycle-1937 for one). There were also Nobel Prize winners that did not go through the peer review process, such as Abdus Salam, “Weak and electromagnetic interactions” (1968), and Watson and Crick, 1951, a paper on DNA in nature.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the thread “Faith, Fantasy, And The Protean Peer Review Process” in the Science and Technology forum:

originally posted by: Klassified

. . . Without peer review, how would we maintain quality, accuracy, and scientific integrity?

To answer that, we must first understand what “peer review” is. You will find many references to “peer review”, but definitions can be somewhat varied, the harder you look. However, one definition that seems to be agreed upon is:

"Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc."

Opinion? Wait a minute. Opinion!? What does that mean? Is that like an educated guess? Or is opinion, fact in this case? Hmmm. . . .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And from the thread “A Little Something About Peer Review” in the 9/11 Conspiracies forum:

originally posted by: MagoSA

. . . Peer review is a non-objective review of a scholar's paper, data, methodology, and conclusions that is submitted to multiple other scholars in the same discipline as the submitters in order to verify and authenticate the material contained.

As anthropologists can attest, the peer review does not ensure honesty and objective consideration of data and results. Often, peer review will reject cutting-edge material for a number of reasons, the most common of them being that they do not match what the reviewer has invested in his/her own research and conclusions. . . .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think that is a good sample of the good work that has already been done by ATS on this issue.

Peer review should not be cited as a requirement before something can be discussed in the Science and Technology forum, nor should it be used as a weapon to shoot down posts made by members who explore alternative science and technology.

I agree with both your premise and conclusion.
Carry on.

In this thread: a bunch of people who have no idea what peer-review or the scientific process is about and are annoyed that science won't acknowledge their credulously held magical beliefs.

a reply to: Mary Rose

I agree with you when you say peer review process may hold back scientific breakthroughs. You put some nice examples in your post. At the same time, peer review later validated those results. Science works by first reacting skeptically and only later accepting something. That is just how the scientific method functions.

In fact, the scientific method requires peer review, or the sharing of results so they can be replicated and tested... That is a necessary part of science in general. I've known several professors with doctorates in their fields have their papers rejected by scholarly articles, and not because of bad data or conclusions. Sometimes it's a matter of something as silly as formatting, but here's the deal... You can resubmit those papers. Or you can submit them elsewhere. Your data will eventually be seen.

Let's look at the alternative, which you have alluded to... Just let everyone post their ideas. No need for peer review, no need to conform to accepted knowledge. Do you think everyone who posts on these matters is an expert? How about even educated on the topic?

Can I say the moon is cheese because I think it looks like cheese? How would you know it isn't, have you been there? Moon rocks? That was a hoax.

Peer review is flawed, don't get me wrong. But I'll take those limitations of peer review, because they allow us to talk about consensus ideas (which sometimes need fine tuning, in fact always do...) that are mostly validated and supported by evidence. Regardless of the correctness of the consensus model, it is still a model that fits all but perhaps the most recent of data, which will provide miniscule changes...

If you wish to discuss something with no peer reviewed articles, like "healing crystal therapy" (all right, there have probably been some studies on this, but I doubt anything greater than the placebo effect has been found), how do you go about it? I say I think you're wrong, you say you're right... I say this road leads to nowhere... fast. All we are doing at this point is talking about opinion.

a reply to: GetHyped

You're generalizing about the members posting in this thread when only two people had posted?

Yes, peer-review is absolutely vital to ensuring accurate work but that being said, there is no standard unto which someone can call something peer-reviewed.

There are a number of scientific journals (I won't name names) that simply have a couple of editors and one or two staff members look over papers and check for proper layout of the papers and call them peer-reviewed without having any knowledge of the content.

So when you see something that is "peer-reviewed" you need to look at the source and see what they are using for criteria to give it that title.

Every scientific journal will list their methods of reviewing papers and work.

originally posted by: GetHyped
In this thread: a bunch of people who have no idea what peer-review or the scientific process is about and are annoyed that science won't acknowledge their credulously held magical beliefs.

I see this very thing all the time.

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: Mary Rose
. . . peer review later validated those results. . . .

Peer review doesn't validate results.

Experimentation validates results.

In fact, the scientific method requires peer review, or the sharing of results so they can be replicated and tested...

The sharing of results is different from the gatekeeper of peer review before you can get published.

Or you can submit them elsewhere. Your data will eventually be seen.

There is also the tyranny of the journals that are ridiculed by mainstream science and members on forums.

Let's look at the alternative, which you have alluded to... Just let everyone post their ideas. No need for peer review, no need to conform to accepted knowledge. Do you think everyone who posts on these matters is an expert? How about even educated on the topic?

This is a forum.

It is designed for discussion.

If someone posts a stupid thread it can be ignored and quickly forgotten.

All we are doing at this point is talking about opinion.

There is no harm in that.

Especially when self-taught, creative people share their opinions.

a reply to: Mary Rose

You are one of them. Given the calamity of the "scientism" thread and as an observer of numerous pseudo-science threads, I feel it's an accurate observation.

a reply to: Senators

Peer-review isn't about validating results. That's what happens within the scientific community afterwards. Peer-review is simply dotting the i's and crossing the t's as well as weeding out flawed and/or unoriginal research. The discussion within the scientific community that follows is what the hucksters, shysters and con artists who promote all manner of pseudo-scientific nonsense to the ignorant and credulous steer well clear of.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Mary Rose

Given the calamity of the "scientism" thread and as an observer of numerous pseudo-science threads, I feel it's an accurate observation.

The "calamity"? How so?

"Pseudo-science" threads? What is a pseudo-science thread?

originally posted by: GetHyped
In this thread: a bunch of people who have no idea what peer-review or the scientific process is about and are annoyed that science won't acknowledge their credulously held magical beliefs.

No, not at all. Your comment going so far to the other end of the scale right off the bat, without any real discussion, or considering the statements and concepts brought forth by the OP, make you look ridiculously lacking in academic forethought, or even any sentience at all. Maybe you should check out the philosophy threads, and then work your way back to this kind of thread when you think you can hobnob with the bigger kids?

That might be helpful for you.

And to address the thread creator: Perfectly stated OP, look how well it showed exactly what you were talking about.., there are plenty of well documented instances of arrogant members of institutions who have used their positions to slander credible people, because of political motivations and lots of other reasons. I think it is very humorous when someone illustrates this and then we see it flush out someone with a guilty conscience.

a reply to: Mary Rose

well an example would be the so called proof of consiousness controlled quantum effects that i have read through posted here. They would not make it peer review, as they couldn't make it past even me, who although is a PhD and a Post-doctoral fellow, is not a faculty. I could see numerous problems with how the 'research' was presented, the analysis done, and the conclusions drawn from.

Yet people will say "Oh this is ground breaking" but the truth is, it is a example of bad bad bad practice. If done with correct controls and understanding of systematics, nothing could be drawn from the experiment performed

originally posted by: Mary Rose

The "calamity"? How so?

Because it was filled with ignorant statements by people who were butthurt that their credulous magical beliefs weren't taken seriously by the scientific community. It was started by a Creationist, for goodness sake.

I propose this hypothesis:

"Pseudo-science" threads? What is a pseudo-science thread?

Check your post history.

I agree wholeheartedly....

originally posted by: Senators
Yes, peer-review is absolutely vital to ensuring accurate work but that being said, there is no standard unto which someone can call something peer-reviewed.

There are a number of scientific journals (I won't name names) that simply have a couple of editors and one or two staff members look over papers and check for proper layout of the papers and call them peer-reviewed without having any knowledge of the content.

So when you see something that is "peer-reviewed" you need to look at the source and see what they are using for criteria to give it that title.

Every scientific journal will list their methods of reviewing papers and work.

you're speaking only from the publication end of things. Getting a journal to publish your work is only one aspect of peer review. Decisions made by editorial staff are not in and of themselves peer review. As the name implies, it is when your data is reviewed by competent members of your field or associated fields(your peers) and your experiments are recreated to see if the same results are obtained.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

Peer review doesn't validate results.

Experimentation validates results.

The sharing of results is different from the gatekeeper of peer review before you can get published.

Perhaps you aren't clear on how peer review actually works. getting published is not itself the peer review. You publish the paper so that equally qualified(or more so) in your field or related fields(also known as your peers) review your data to look for errors and then attempt to recreate the experiments and obtain the same results. So yes, its experimentation that validates results,but the experimentation that validates is an essential function of the peer review process.

There is also the tyranny of the journals that are ridiculed by mainstream science and members on forums.

who cares about what other people think or ridicule? if that data is legitimate, then it can be reproduced independently and reviewed. the results and the ability to reproduce those results is what is important.

This is a forum.
It is designed for discussion.
If someone posts a stupid thread it can be ignored and quickly forgotten.

sure, but there are also those who want to latch on to any insane concept that jives with them and care nothing about due diligence.

There is no harm in that.

Especially when self-taught, creative people share their opinions.

why such contempt for people who paid for an education instead of taking the autodidactic route?

originally posted by: peter vlar
why such contempt for people who paid for an education instead of taking the autodidactic route?

Fair question.

My contempt is aimed at the people who try to claim authority because they have a PhD end of story.

All things considered in this day and age I am of the opinion that the odds are that an autodidact is more likely to have a true thirst for knowledge and a drive to make a contribution to society than a person who has gone through the programming that one must go through to get the grades and earn a living doing it the mainstream way.

originally posted by: GetHyped
In this thread: a bunch of people who have no idea what peer-review or the scientific process is about and are annoyed that science won't acknowledge their credulously held magical beliefs.

in this thread some half breed of a horse and donkey is telling us about something that was non existant before he or she spewed off at the fingers. It shows that you feel very threatened by something very much. I think you have an agenda that you are yourself unaware of. TYRANNY

originally posted by: hydeman11
Peer review is flawed, don't get me wrong.

The biggest flaw is that people who are good at doing it don't get paid anything for doing it by either the beneficiaries or their employers.

If you want somebody to do a good job promptly, then make it worth their while.