3 ms·
A common test for these methods is that they undergo peer review and are reasonably accepted. Many of them DID pass peer review. They had papers written on how
by vorpalhex 4y ago
A common test for these methods is that they undergo peer review and are reasonably accepted.
Many of them DID pass peer review. They had papers written on how well they work.
Obviously something in that peer review process has (yet again) led us to junk science.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoThis example was already being used in cases before the original study was even published for exploratory review.
- linuxftw 4y agoPeer review is just people looking at a report and deciding whether or not your conclusions and findings are based on the data you reported. What it's not is replication or in any way an indication that the original research was independent. The person reviewing your report has no way to know if your data is totally fabricated or not unless they try to replicate your study.