posted on Aug, 11 2014 @ 03:06 PM
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
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)