Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality [Peer Review]

[anewmama]

[Oops, title got cut off full title is "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality
or Enforce Orthodoxy?" ]


I am not all the way through this between taking care of DD, laundry and other Sunday chores. Some very interesting points. Particularly when you consider the emphasis we all place on peer reviewed studies in published journals.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_P...iew_070103.pdf

(found linked to from this site: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/...-reviewed.html interesting peer review commentary in the comments)

Read this in conjunction with the article posted in the other thread and science does not look as pure as science likes to "pretend" it is. Or no?


http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep...epidemiology17

[ema-adama]

Wow, brilliant article. I haven't read it all just yet.... gotta go to sleep. But yeah, this has been a niggling thought that I had, that only if your paper is OK according to a group of specialists, does it get the stamp of approval. Surely this would prevent any real advances in knowledge and understanding?

I'll finish it tomorrow.
Great find.

[Deborah]

peer review probably works okay some of the time

--when the topic isn't controversial

--when there isn't a big battle going on between various schools of thought

--when the study doesn't kill anyone's pet concept

the more obscure the subject, the better

[anewmama]

what did one of the comments say on one of those links?

peer review is herd review.