Peer-reviewed scientific journal

[Steve Liberati]

This may sound like a silly question but what exactly does it mean when someone uses a peer-review scientific journal as a frame of reference? I'm guessing its self-explanatory in the sense medical doctors and scientists review and approve the statement as valid, but is the peer-reviewed journal the end-all to end-all? Does peer-reviewed contentions ultimately refute any counter arguments and act as the highest form of validity?

[Steve Shafley]

In short, no.

Peer review often means "mob rule"

[Pierre Auge]

Essentially if I write something supid and Steve says yeah thats pretty stupid but funny. Then its been peer reviewed and i am now an expert on whatever stupid thing I just wrote!

[Mike ODonnell]

Pierre did write something stupid....peer reviewed again.

[Dave Van Skike]

Originally Posted by Mike ODonnell

Pierre did write something stupid....peer reviewed again.

True peer review requires that you have a spectrum of opinions. As in..I say. Steve was simplistic, Pierre's was just wrong and Mike piled on. Now that, is peer review.


Actually, peer review is a good deal more than mob rule. Peer review does not mean something is right but it adds a huge measure of credibility in that someone put their hat into the ring, published their assumptions and let their community of experts rip them apart.

"the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely to some degree on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research."

I look at peer review as a benchmark like competition.

You may say you can squat 500 in your basement. That's cool. If you do it on a platform with white lights all around that's cooler. The 500 pounds didn't change, your willingness to put it out there did.

[Pierre Auge]

Dave I was just being an ass... I apologize my humour was not constructive in the least. Nor funny!

[Steve Shafley]

Low carb diets, for example, were a victim of mob-rule peer review.

[Steve Shafley]

Pierre:

I have reviewed your statements and concur.

[Pierre Auge]

Steve, ok but that was funny

[Steve Shafley]

Oh, I was agreeing to the first one.

In my experience, scientists often have communication deficits, and PhDs and MDs in particular seem to be permanently welded to a certain frame of reference and belief system.