3 ms·
The counterpoint to this is that lots of science isn’t high quality. The whole point of peer review is to help protect against bad science, which definitely exi
by eapressoandcats 3y ago
The counterpoint to this is that lots of science isn’t high quality. The whole point of peer review is to help protect against bad science, which definitely exists. As noted in the article, if people don’t like the views of a paper they can pretty much always make legitimate content neutral seeming criticisms of the paper, and there just isn’t a foolproof way to separate junk science from science people just don’t like.
- bluish29 3y agoPeer review in its original intent is about validating that this particular paper is following scientific method. And that it is not completely made up or plagiarized. And most importantly is an honest try, not committing obvious mistakes and that the conclusion is supported by some evidence. People sometime confuse peer-reviewed with peer-checked which means in most cases reproduced independently. Of course in some fields things get complicated but the core idea of peer-reviewed is the same. You can consider it as an effort to maximize signal to noise ratio in science more than fact checking process