It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Peer Review Tyranny

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




If I gave you 3 apples and 1 orange and said I gave you 4 apples what would you tell me?


that your trying to distract from the points and turn this into something else.

what do you call it when Scientist 'A' is charged to scientifically investigate for a cause of an incident.

but Scientist 'A' can find no scientific reason why the incident occurred...

then three years later, Scientist 'A-1', 'A-2' and 'A-3' come up with a new form of physics to show as the scientific reason why the incident occurs.....but refuses to communicate and peer review outside themselves to anyone.

it just goes straight to scientific fact without proper peer review in order to verify and validate. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility.

no peer review. NO credibility...no matter who says it.




posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Mary Rose

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up.
But.

Are scientists any good at judging the importance of the scientific work of others? According to a study published 8 October in the open access journal PLOS Biology (with an accompanying editorial), scientists are unreliable judges of the importance of fellow researchers' published papers.

Source@Phys.org



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

This is about judging the significance of a paper's contribution based on metrics such as post-publication discussion, the number of citations picked up and the impact factor of the journal the paper was published in. Don't really see how this ties in with peer-review or "tyranny".



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Thank you.

I see that “PLOS” stands for Public Library of Science.

Interesting:


The article's lead author, Professor Adam Eyre-Walker of the University of Sussex, says: "Scientists are probably the best judges of science, but they are pretty bad at it."

m.phys.org...



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: soundstyle
Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility.

And as has already been said over and over and over, exactly the opposite is what really happens...


Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health. Lawyers destroy justice. Universities destroy knowledge. Governments destroy freedom. The major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality. ~ Michael Ellner



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid




And as has already been said over and over and over, exactly the opposite is what really happens...


as the points of the postings of whom you replied to show.

how so-called peer reviews are allowed to be based on non peer reviewed data.....just because.

...that's a problem.



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
As i said earlier in this thread what is most interesting is that the people gunning against peer review appear not to actually know how it works, nor do they appear to have any experience of the process in any field. What they have also only appear to be the jilted stories of a few people who couldn't get their work through proper peer review process and thus cry foul.

The Peer review process is in a small way similar to a PhD thesis defence. Typically what happens is that your work is handed to two or more people to read and scrutinize. Typically the university will have the requirement that at least two of the panel should not be familiar with your work but are experts in a closely related field. One will be from the outside (external examiner) and one with be from your institute. The point is that your thesis should teach these two people what you did, how you did it and all approaches to account for results. If they have a problem with it, and don't agree with what you did, then you will probably have to do some large corrections and possibly re-work big sections of it.

The people who review it do so on their own time, they are not getting paid by the government with a mandate to keep an eye on rebels, these are normal people who live and breath science. What they do when they read a thesis is to try and follow the approach and think about how they would do the experiment and control the parameters as an external viewer. Typically if the thesis is good, then the experimental approach will be fine, all i's dotted and t's crossed.

Iv read papers linked on ATS that where so bad that within a very short period of time I couldn't trust what i was reading, because the text was full of logical fallacies and blatant heavy analysis of garbage data to make it fit what the author wanted. Things like attention to detail that on face value appears to go very far, (to the untrained observer) but to a scientist doesn't go far enough. Claiming correlation between data when there is clearly no correlation at all.

Then they cry foul because they believe the mainstream doesn't want their science... no wrong, what the mainstream wants is everyone to perform experiments that are extremely unbias and controlled, with analysis of data that is not gunning at all accounts to find a signal by cherry picking data.

The biggest problem is not peer review, it is the pay for publish journals... who attempt to legitimize extremely substandard work that people with PhD's perform at the standard of high school students. Further more it is the incorrect reporting of experimental results by media people who know little to nothing about the subjects upon which they report. Seen far to many examples of that on ATS than i care to count, posting blog news sites as experimental evidence, and upon inspection of the ACTUAL paper, you find that the apparent effect reported on is not proven beyond doubt, and is being sensationalized to the point of mis-information.
edit on 11-8-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join