Originally posted by BobathonHi there Bobathon, and thanks for chiming in. I admit I have things to learn so don't take this the wrong way, but what is your source for saying this is technically correct?
Unfortunately it seems that it's technically correct to refer to it as 'peer-reviewed' by virtue of the fact that it was chosen by 'peers' at the conference at which it was presented, regardless of whether they had any expertise in or familiarity with the subject of the paper.
So if he attends a conference on flower arranging and submits a physics paper there, if the other flower arrangers read it he can claim the physics paper was peer reviewed even though they were flower arrangers?
I can't prove you wrong* but I can ask you to back up that claim please, thanks.
And if it is true, that's shocking.
*Edit to add: I did find this definition:
Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.
The word peer is often defined as a person of equal standing. However, in the context of peer review it is generally used in a broader sense to refer to people in the same profession who are of the same or higher ranking.
In no way does that source agree with your claim, The peers doing the reviewing must be in the same profession according to that.
edit on 5-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: added definition