3 ms·

> In a new study that is yet to be peer reviewed Thank you very, very much to the author for saying this

coldtea 3y ago
Even if it was peer reviewed, most published studies are non-replicated/bad methodology BS. So "yet to be peer reviewed" means the study paper is closer to "random generated garbage text" than to "important insight".
passwordoops 3y ago
For all practical purposes, peer review is mostly useless today. More often than not, it's either: -a cursory glance by someone who doesn't have time to care -a highly detailed critique from someone who will either be scooped or proven wrong, so they're looking for any reason to reject the paper, good or bad -a grad student who puts in the effort but probably still lacks the experience for a good review And if peer review actually was useful then the false cure for MS [0], arsenic-based life [1], or vaccines-cause-autism [2] would all be DOA and never been published in major journals to so much PR fanfare. Heck, most of Retraction Watch wouldn't be a thing [3]. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/28/multiple-sclerosis-paolo-zamboni/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/28/multiple-sclerosis-paolo... [1] https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-u... [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/06/some-quick-thoughts-and-links-on-andrew-wakefield-the-bmj-autism-vaccines-and-fraud/ https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/06/some-quick-thoughts-a... [3] https://retractionwatch.com/ https://retractionwatch.com/
- junon 3y ago
  Man I remember the arsenic-based lifeforms thing, always wondered what happened to that. I didn't know it was ever debunked.
- replygirl 3y ago
  > a highly detailed critique from someone who will either be scooped or proven wrong, so they're looking for any reason to reject sounds like an ideal reviewer, tbh
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    "Reason" might be "major flaw in your statistical analysis", but it could also be "you should have cited my paper" or "insufficient jargon."
    - replygirl 3y ago
      I'd want to hear that out and make sure I'm not mistaking "I've done some prior work that enriches yours" for "You should have cited my paper" or "You're not communicating clearly and succintly" for "insufficient jargon"

Even if it was peer reviewed, most published studies are non-replicated/bad methodology BS. So "yet to be peer reviewed" means the study paper is closer to "random generated garbage text" than to "important insight".

passwordoops 3y ago

For all practical purposes, peer review is mostly useless today. More often than not, it's either: -a cursory glance by someone who doesn't have time to care -a highly detailed critique from someone who will either be scooped or proven wrong, so they're looking for any reason to reject the paper, good or bad -a grad student who puts in the effort but probably still lacks the experience for a good review And if peer review actually was useful then the false cure for MS [0], arsenic-based life [1], or vaccines-cause-autism [2] would all be DOA and never been published in major journals to so much PR fanfare. Heck, most of Retraction Watch wouldn't be a thing [3]. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/28/multiple-sclerosis-paolo-zamboni/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/28/multiple-sclerosis-paolo... [1] https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html https://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-u... [2] https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/06/some-quick-thoughts-and-links-on-andrew-wakefield-the-bmj-autism-vaccines-and-fraud/ https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/06/some-quick-thoughts-a... [3] https://retractionwatch.com/ https://retractionwatch.com/

junon 3y ago
Man I remember the arsenic-based lifeforms thing, always wondered what happened to that. I didn't know it was ever debunked.
replygirl 3y ago
> a highly detailed critique from someone who will either be scooped or proven wrong, so they're looking for any reason to reject sounds like an ideal reviewer, tbh
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  "Reason" might be "major flaw in your statistical analysis", but it could also be "you should have cited my paper" or "insufficient jargon."
  - replygirl 3y ago
    I'd want to hear that out and make sure I'm not mistaking "I've done some prior work that enriches yours" for "You should have cited my paper" or "You're not communicating clearly and succintly" for "insufficient jargon"