4 ms·

Some five-year-old stunt doesn’t proof anything, least of all that there is any alternative. What would you replace peer review with? Some guy publishing straig

Some five-year-old stunt doesn’t proof anything, least of all that there is any alternative. What would you replace peer review with? Some guy publishing straight-into-camera rants on YouTube?

no_time 5y ago
>Some five-year-old stunt doesn’t proof anything If they haven't spotted such a blatant mistake do you think they will spot subtle lies that have been inserted on purpose to sway opinion/serve as ammo for some journalist who knows its audience can be misled by merely mentioning its a study from an "academic journal". I don't know the solution to be honest. What I know however is that unless you are an expert in a topic, your chances of knowing what's true and what's not is very slim.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  There are good journals with a strict vetting process and there are predatory journals where the "peer review" is just a rubber stamp iif you pay the publication fees. And there are many levels in between. So in an Internet discussion, I try to use "published in a serious peer review journal". But it's very difficult to know if a journal is serious unless you are an specialist in that area. There are indices that somewhat measure the quality, but for example a citation index or 1.5 is a lot in Math but low in Physics, so you don't know unless you are an specialist in the area. There are tricks that are useful to detect bad journals, like looking at the rest of the articles published in the journal. A lot of single author articles is a red flag. Weird titles like "Using General relativity to prove that Sunspots are Conscious" is another red flag.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >There are good journals with a strict vetting process This is a myth. Vetting process cannot help if the persons involved are corrupt. Getting a "good reputation" might be just the first step in the journey to corruption.
nextlevelwizard 5y ago
You seem to think "peer review" is something magical and absolutely necessary for science, when in fact all it does is give your peers and grant rivals heads up on what you are publishing/researching so they can decide if they want to A) allow you to publish B) try and publish their research before you C) just veto your paper and claim it is not good.

Some five-year-old stunt doesn’t proof anything, least of all that there is any alternative. What would you replace peer review with? Some guy publishing straight-into-camera rants on YouTube?

no_time 5y ago

>Some five-year-old stunt doesn’t proof anything If they haven't spotted such a blatant mistake do you think they will spot subtle lies that have been inserted on purpose to sway opinion/serve as ammo for some journalist who knows its audience can be misled by merely mentioning its a study from an "academic journal". I don't know the solution to be honest. What I know however is that unless you are an expert in a topic, your chances of knowing what's true and what's not is very slim.

gus_massa 5y ago
There are good journals with a strict vetting process and there are predatory journals where the "peer review" is just a rubber stamp iif you pay the publication fees. And there are many levels in between. So in an Internet discussion, I try to use "published in a serious peer review journal". But it's very difficult to know if a journal is serious unless you are an specialist in that area. There are indices that somewhat measure the quality, but for example a citation index or 1.5 is a lot in Math but low in Physics, so you don't know unless you are an specialist in the area. There are tricks that are useful to detect bad journals, like looking at the rest of the articles published in the journal. A lot of single author articles is a red flag. Weird titles like "Using General relativity to prove that Sunspots are Conscious" is another red flag.
- forcry 5y ago
  >There are good journals with a strict vetting process This is a myth. Vetting process cannot help if the persons involved are corrupt. Getting a "good reputation" might be just the first step in the journey to corruption.

nextlevelwizard 5y ago

You seem to think "peer review" is something magical and absolutely necessary for science, when in fact all it does is give your peers and grant rivals heads up on what you are publishing/researching so they can decide if they want to A) allow you to publish B) try and publish their research before you C) just veto your paper and claim it is not good.