4 ms·
I think research should be assumed fiction until it’s peer reviewed.
by october8140 8mo ago
I think research should be assumed fiction until it’s peer reviewed.
- contubernio 8mo agoThere is not good evidence that peer review improves quality and there is perhaps some to the contrary (many predatory journals are peer reviewed). The arxiv (unreviewed) is among the most reliable sources available.
- ranger_danger 8mo agoWhat do you suggest instead? Certainly not giving up I hope.
- observationist 8mo agoYeah, it's almost like science is better when the scientific method is applied to everything, instead of delegating validation to some third party based on credentials or authority or social status.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- moi2388 8mo agoIndependently replicated. Reviewed says pretty much nothing.
- kergonath 8mo agoPeer review is a sniff test. It cannot guarantee that the results are correct and the conclusions are right. It is just designed to limit some kinds of errors. Replication is important.
- roywiggins 8mo agoCase studies can't be replicated. They aren't experiments.
- em-bee 8mo agoyou can find multiple cases that are comparable. one case study is an anecdote. multiple studies for the same kind of case...
- ambicapter 8mo agoTough to replicate an isolated case study?
- moi2388 8mo agoEspecially if they are made up.
- Rallen89 8mo agoI think it's a bit different considering the goal was a teaching tool of well recognised conditions >all or almost all were cases of very well recognized conditions [...] where a single case report would not generate any interest or ever be cited.
- readthenotes1 8mo agoThat is an ironic proviso given that the article clearly states "The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional." Peer review by peers who are trained by non-replicable science is not helpful...