4 ms·

I think you’re overthinking it. Certain studies gain so many upvotes on HN because they generate interesting discussion, and may be worth storing in our favori

I think you’re overthinking it. Certain studies gain so many upvotes on HN because they generate interesting discussion, and may be worth storing in our favorites for sharing and/or future reference. I almost always upvote articles when there is interesting discussion (or the potential for interesting discussion) related to the article. I very rarely (but do sometimes) upvote articles solely based on the content of the articles themselves. Or rather, I’m much more interested in a collection of people’s thoughts vs. a single person’s thoughts.

dheera 6y ago
On the other hand, isn't it a peer-reviewed journal? If we have to do the legwork of going around asking what other clinicians think of it, it has failed at its mission as a peer-reviewed journal.
- adamjb 6y ago
  You have a weird view of academia
- Retric 6y ago
  Peer review only is the initial smell test, and don’t mean it’s actually true. Fraud for example can often pass peer review just fine. That said, it does catch errors and rejects a lot of junk which is why it’s considered important.
- refurb 6y ago
  No, peer review is “there doesn’t seem to be an major errors and the thinking is reasonable”
- coldtea 6y ago
  >it has failed at its mission as a peer-reviewed journal Peer-reviewed just means: (a) a bunch of guys had a cursory look at the research, which they might or might not be able to follow (even basic math), and left some hasty criticism on low hanging fruits (or the personal pet peeves they always mention) to pretend they thoroughly read it, and accepted it (b) Some scholar friends accepted this as a favor to other academic friends, who will backrub them when they submit their own research, and help each other pad their paper counts And meta-analysis means: (c) Let's take 80 crap papers, study them as if they're relevant, and get some statistical takeways...
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  I run across peer reviewed garbage on nih.gov all the time. I report them and quite rarely they are taken down. Others put more effort into this than me. They will publish nonsensical papers to expose the vulnerabilities. I am too lazy for that.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dheera 6y ago

On the other hand, isn't it a peer-reviewed journal? If we have to do the legwork of going around asking what other clinicians think of it, it has failed at its mission as a peer-reviewed journal.

adamjb 6y ago
You have a weird view of academia
Retric 6y ago
Peer review only is the initial smell test, and don’t mean it’s actually true. Fraud for example can often pass peer review just fine. That said, it does catch errors and rejects a lot of junk which is why it’s considered important.
refurb 6y ago
No, peer review is “there doesn’t seem to be an major errors and the thinking is reasonable”
coldtea 6y ago
>it has failed at its mission as a peer-reviewed journal Peer-reviewed just means: (a) a bunch of guys had a cursory look at the research, which they might or might not be able to follow (even basic math), and left some hasty criticism on low hanging fruits (or the personal pet peeves they always mention) to pretend they thoroughly read it, and accepted it (b) Some scholar friends accepted this as a favor to other academic friends, who will backrub them when they submit their own research, and help each other pad their paper counts And meta-analysis means: (c) Let's take 80 crap papers, study them as if they're relevant, and get some statistical takeways...
LinuxBender 6y ago
I run across peer reviewed garbage on nih.gov all the time. I report them and quite rarely they are taken down. Others put more effort into this than me. They will publish nonsensical papers to expose the vulnerabilities. I am too lazy for that.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]