/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11788574
peer review is immensely gay
I don't need a gaggle of trannies telling me the sky is orange

>>11788574
Jesus christ not this pseudoscientist again. Peer review isn't gate keeping. If you want people to read you paper publish it on biorxiv or your equivalent prepublication. Also they fundamentally do not understand the review process.

>>11789370
No it isnt gate keeping, but a lot of people in argumentation present peer review as some standardizing/ quality control process. It is not the case that peer review checks the quality or consistency of research results.

e.g. "do you have a peer reviewed source for that information"

>>11789377
There has been a decline in the standard and quantity of data presented for verification by studies aswell. Poor methodologies are standard. Buzzword abstracts and conclusions are also common.

>>11789377
Yes they check that you have peer review sources because when you are referring to models or ideas based on data that was collected from a lab you have a source that can show you HOW that data was collected and WHAT the researchers did. It ties that data to a name and a lab. Good peer review can assess quality of research because after the editor decides the paper is worth reviewing they choose reviewers either from a dedicated board of reviewers which work full time as reviewers or they find specialists in the field to review the paper. Typically the journals with the massive review boards are the very high impact journals like Nature.

>>11789400
>Good peer review assesses quality
>Massive review boards are somehow linked to high impact
> High impact/ highly cited papers have higher quality data presentation/ methodology than non-peer reviewed papers
Do you have a peer reviewed source for this information

>>11789427
i fucking hate you presuppositionalists cunts
end your LIFE

>>11789433
Good day to you too sir

>>11789379
So just imagine how broken and dysfunctional a paper must be to not even pass peer review. I am skeptical as it is, I wouldn't touch a non peer reviewed journal with a 10 foot pole. And then even for peer reviewed stuff, I have to check the reliability of the publication and who is in charge of it. It's unfortunate but necessary.

>>11789442
It might not be broken or dysfunctional. Many are, but if you had a revolutionary paper that threatened another field, or the work of most people in a field (including the panel of reviewers) would it get published in a peer review journal.

I know peer review can skim off a lot of cack, but it might throw out individual gems in the process.

>>11788574
ahhhh, judgment research. Yaaaas, its pretty much confirming humans are fucked.

>>11789427
I did not once say that papers in high impact journals have higher quality in methods or presentation. I said as an example of review boards that nature has a large review board that they use. You dont need a peer reviewed paper to know this if you actually read each journals website about their publication process.

>>11789454
There are a lot of publications out there, even super shitty ones that are run by quacks and ones that love to publish contrarian views. If you can't even get into those?? There must be serious fundamental flaws in the methodology. So no, I'm not willing to give unpublished papers a chance, sorry. Get published at the very least.

>>11789370
>Peer review isn't gate keeping.
*Gaping onions mouth*

If the science doesn't stand for itself, it doesn't stand.

>>11789377
EXCUSE ME do you have a source for that?
You can't make inferences without a legitimate SOURCE

>>11789400
>reviewers which work full time as reviewers
lol wtf are you talking about

not a single journal that I know of has full time reviewers. reviewers are people from the field who do this work for free, next to their actual job. I know this because I regularly review manuscripts myself. you might be thinking of editorial staff, but they don't judge the technical quality of work but only its potential suitability for the respective journal

>>11789505
Case in point

>>11789569
Yeah this made me laugh too

>>11789718
Case in point what?

>>11789370
>pseudoscientist

Here's a good example of peer review at work.

This study was published, proudly proclaiming massive IQ gains by blacks adopted into white middle class homes:
http://archive.is/slTYG

Richard Lynn offered a rebuttal, which completely demolished the claims made in the papers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0160289694900507

The scientist behind the paper admitted her fault, that she deliberately biased her conclusions to meet the expectation of her liberal colleagues:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289699800051
>“The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions”

With her research actually supporting her ideological opposition, she eventually pulled the paper off the web, quit the scientific profession in disgrace, and is now working as a coffee-grower in Hawaii

>>11789370
>isn't gatekeeping
There are various papers talking about hydroxychloroquine from doing nothing to being slightly useful to treat either covid symptoms or the disease itself, which are in biorxiv
However, the ones that received wide press, and thus public attention, were the few that had problems with the study design, so drug research was shut down
I don't want this shit to get political so I won't inquire why this happened, only that it happened recently

>>11789222
I didn't know people this based were on /sci/

>>11789875
What the public and lay audiences latches onto is an entirely different problem in and of itself. This is actually a massive issue in science and organizations like the are working on initiatives to combat this. When lay audiences try to read scholarly works a lot of the time it is a toss up as to the quality of the paper they are reading and disseminate via media. Primarily because they usually do not read or understand the methods and are not familiar with the background of the subject.
Interestingly for hydroxchloroquine the number of papers on this compound have increased of the past 10 years not just in this last year.
I'm not sure what the status of hydroxychloroquine is currently in research or what alternative purposes people are devising for it.

I bet he's a leftist, leftist like to attack science because it's not on their side and never will.
Once they "debunked" science they will proceed to make emotional and stupid arguments with nothing to back up, but people from there on will eat it up because "bruh science ain't real look this one article is saying so"

>>11789569
Sorry you are right i mixed the two up. There is an editorial board, and in certain journals the editorial board reviews the manuscripts sent in, where an associate editor memeber (practicing scientist) also has to assess the manuscript. JBC uses a structure like this as an example. I don't know what field you work in but this in common in the biological sciences.

http://jbcresources.asbmb.org/peer-review-at-jbc

>>11791060
kek

>>11789758
my fucking sides

>>11789377
Uh, yeah umm okay. Like, do you have a source for that? Preferably published in a reputable peer reviewed non-predatory journal with a high impact factor, and within the last 5 years. It should have at least 15 citations too.

Yeah, sooo.....
[citation needed]

>>11791149
case in point

>>11788574
peer review is great, journals are cancer that provide no value at all and inhibit scientific process. And everyone that ascribes value to that trash is part of the problem.

>>11789493
Im not arguing this. Im arguing large review boards have the potential to suppress important findings - not that all peer review is evil, or that non-peer reviewed papers should all be treated equally.