[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 62 KB, 570x537, 1599147544551.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12134126 No.12134126[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>NOT PEER REVIEWED

>> No.12134645

>>12134126
Are you one of those who think "peer review" means anything else that somebody read the paper and didn't think it was garbage?

>> No.12134753
File: 44 KB, 620x675, ds.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12134753

>>12134645
>i only take peer reviews seriously

>> No.12135719

Yes, a few people sitting around a table for 20 minutes saying "this look good to you?" is the ultimate gold standard of scientific reliability.

>> No.12135732

>>12135719
seems about right

just do it around diffrent tables

maybe switch around the teams once in a while to keep it fresh

>> No.12135733

>>12135719
In terms of probability, it's better than nobody looking at it, yes.

>> No.12135805
File: 32 KB, 516x424, 1581811094992.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12135805

>>12135719
but doesnt that mean its all bullshit and in the current landscape of science and politics it will only lead to the constant narrowing of what is deemed "acceptable science"

>> No.12135831

>>12134126
Don't you already have a thread up?

>> No.12135832

let me guess, your paper was rejected or you are pissed off that someone told you that the schizo blogpost/vixra or whatever study you posted isn't a serious or legitimate source

>> No.12135835

>>12135805
People who complain about "accepted science" are usually /pol/tards

>> No.12135853

>>12134126
>>12134753
>I only read papers that were approved from a single person who may or may not be biased or wrong but I don't mind reading it anyways even though nobody else who is credible looked at it to approve it first.

>> No.12135855

Peer review is like anti-schizophrenia, you have another human being, one with knowledge in the field, look at what you wrote first before showing it to others.

>> No.12135894

>>12134126
(((peer review))) means is this in line with our social engineering agenda
FTFY

>> No.12135901

>>12134126
Academia subversion is the reason the Theory of Relativity wasn’t developed 30 years earlier

>> No.12135906

>>12134126
>>12134753
>>12135894
>>12135901
Seething because the peers didn't give your work a good review?

>> No.12135924

>>12135906
Jokes on you, I was smart enough to ditch academia right after getting my bachelors. Unfortunately I wasn’t smart enough to avoid college all together

>> No.12135933

>>12135733
Not true necessarily. If you are at the forefront of something who is there with the relevant experience to review your work? You just end up with criticisms you have already dealt with ad absurdum, bc people dont understand what you are saying.

No one peer reviewed electricity, engines, penicillin or the first vaccines.

>> No.12135947
File: 59 KB, 760x792, 1599510697894.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12135947

>>12135906
>Seething because the peers didn't give your work a good review?

>> No.12135963

>>12135947
What type of argument cannot be countered by a greentext and basedjack? Do they exist?

>> No.12135967

>>12135963
They don't even need to read the argument they just quote you and post a picture of soijak attributing your quote with the derogatory picture. This allows them to be oblivious to all arguments because they don't even need to counter-argue for themselves.

>> No.12135974

>>12135963
>>12135967
It is funny but it pisses me off. Ignore all soijak posters

>> No.12135986

>>12135933
>If you are at the forefront of something who is there with the relevant experience to review your work?
Being at the forefront doesn't mean your work can't be understood.

>No one peer reviewed electricity, engines, penicillin or the first vaccines.
They definitely peer reviewed the science behind them. You're confusing engineering with science.

>> No.12136001

>>12135894
>>12134126
Hello.schizo. Which millennium level puzzle or nobel prize winning discovery have you made now that leaders in the field are all conspiring to keep you from publishing?

>> No.12136006
File: 128 KB, 1000x800, 1598144568268.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12136006

>>12136001
>Hello.schizo. Which millennium level puzzle or nobel prize winning discovery have you made now that leaders in the field are all conspiring to keep you from publishing?

>> No.12136147
File: 46 KB, 446x602, gigakatti.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12136147

>Hey sojak, did you see that new paper on the ineffectiveness of peer review? Pretty damning huh! Not sure if I should believe it tho, as the paper was itself peer reviewed!

>> No.12136163

>>12135906
>>12136001
hello autistic fucktard

>> No.12136186

>>12135733
>In terms of probability, it's better than nobody looking at it
No it isn't.

>> No.12136225

>this scientist is a scientist because other scientists consider him a scientist
Sounds no different from a church or a mafia.

>> No.12136232

>basedjack redditor poster