What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

16 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

1. All of our institutions are corrupt. I trust NONE. Too bad a large portion of the electorate is happy keeping their heads in the sad. This will not end well.

   1. So sick of the word EXPERT. 99% of them could not find and wipe their own asses in the morning. The world needs Private Education. Public Education is garbage and very corrupted.
      Elite Trash.

2. “Peer Review” is complete nonsense and now means virtually nothing with respect to veracity or quality control. Use the synonym, “Endorsed by a Friend” for a better understanding of the quality of the given assessment.

3. The peer review process has been a joke for decades (if it ever really worked). The only way to properly scrutinize is post-publication.

   1. Indeed. Many years ago, I heard an Ideas documentary on CBC about that sort of thing.

      Whether one’s submission gets accepted depends on more than just actual scholarship. Being associated with the “right” research group or institution helps. Someone at, say, Caltech would have a better chance of getting their paper accepted than some chap at, say, Buttscratch University in Pig’s Knuckle, Saskatchewan.

      It’s all about money. One’s publication record influences one’s funding. One’s publication record helps one get tenure and a seat at the golden hog trough of academe.

4. Which would be better as “peer review”:

   the climate method, where a small number of scientists act as gatekeepers, and basically say that paper is good, without even digging
   or
   the adversarial model, where you send your paper and it’s data to your most hated enemy, and ask them to find flaws with it?

   we all know what we have.

5. I agree with all of the commentary above.
   As you can see how screwed up our current spunky monkey show of self appointed, media appointed and government appointed experts, people are being totally duped by a false narrative that has been spun a science.
   Real science, you can check the authors findings of how they came to a finding.
   Our current system, you can’t. It’s full of shit and inaccurate and yet government and media backed.

   This box they’ve created by our governments propaganda is by approval from government officials.
   No real science need to apply as long as the narrative is being followed, you’ll receive funds or media coverage.

6. President Eisenhower when he left office warned of two things,beware the military industrial complex and do not let government fund university research. Both have happened.

   1. YES. I too have made that point here a few times.

7. Another very recent article on the lies in “peer-reviewed” studies, this time in psychology:

   “Psychological science has been suffering a “replication crisis” for a decade now, but this week there was a particularly newspaper-friendly example of a famous finding failing to hold up on re-examination. The lede writes itself, saving me a bit of trouble: a scientific paper on the subject of dishonesty, one cited hundreds of times, has been proven beyond doubt to contain… dishonestly manufactured, 100 per cent fictional data.”

   https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-why-so-much-psychological-research-cant-be-trusted

8. I said this when the climate lies started 2 decades ago. We would get to a place where nobody but fools trusted scientists (and so called learned scholars)

   Now what? What a catastrophe we have created.

9. Does anyone even give a damn anymore? Is anyone intelligent enough to give a damn anymore. The sky is blue, sometimes, the grass is green sometimes. Oh well.

10. I figured that this was going to be about that new paper that claims it’s unlikely that Wuhan Flu leaked from a lab, you know, because the evidence all was under control of the ChiComs and they would never lie.

11. Peer definition ; a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status. something of equal worth or quality.

    In this crazy day and age of corruption and mass psychosis, Peer review no longer means what it used to mean.

    now it could mean the peers were bribed to approve the work/ the research/the paper…or are simply just as dishonest as the first ” peer” who asked for the approval of the other dishonest peers and agree with his lies.

    Antifa could publish a paper saying that they are not violent, and could say it was peer reviewed,

    and it would mean nothing as the peers who reviewed it would be other violent criminal thugs lying about being non violent equal in “qualification” to all other violent criminal thugs lying about being non violent.

    1. My Ph. D. supervisor told me a story about an unidentified colleague who was sent a manuscript one time. That manuscript was in the out basket within 10 minutes.

       No, reviewers don’t always look that closely. I was made aware of that during my defence in which I was asked questions by certain members of the committee that, had they read my door-stopper, would have known the answers to.

12. PeerPals. An cartoon series for adults.

    There is a spinoff coming, celebrating the irreproducibility of politically correct scientific conclusions.