SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Phys.org is running a story on some of the issues with modern peer review:
Once published, the quality of any particular piece of research is often measured by citations, that is, the number of times that a paper is formally mentioned in a later piece of published research. In theory, this aims to highlight how important, useful or interesting a previous piece of work is. More citations are usually better for the author, although that is not always the case.
Take, for instance, Andrew Wakefield's controversial paper on the association between the MMR jab and autism, published in leading medical journal The Lancet. This paper has received nearly two thousand citations – most authors would be thrilled to receive a hundred. However, the quality of Wakefield's research is not at all reflected by this large number. Many of these citations are a product of the storm of controversy surrounding the work, and are contained within papers which are critical of the methods used. Wakefield's research has now been robustly discredited, and the paper was retracted by the Lancet in 2010. Nevertheless, this extreme case highlights serious problems with judging a paper or an academic by number of citations.
Personally, I've been of the opinion that peer review is all but worthless for quite a while. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has issues with the process.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday November 19 2014, @04:59AM
Personally, I've been of the opinion that peer review is all but worthless for quite a while. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who has issues with the process.
You are aware, are you not, that if this is your personal opinion, it is by definition not peer reviewed. And no matter how many similarly cynical persons cite your skepticism, it does not rise to the level of a peer review where the peers are actually experts in the field rather than a gaggle of denizens of the intertubes. I am glad we are having this discussion, and Dave, I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission, but this comes across as good old fashioned American anti-intellectualism where we cannot establish a statistically significant result because we are afraid of going out in public without a concealed weapon. (I prefer a Thermal Detonator: Good enough for Princess Leia, good enough for me.)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 19 2014, @06:11PM
You are aware, are you not, that if this is your personal opinion, it is by definition not peer reviewed.
The writer made no pretense to having a peer reviewed opinion. At worst, their words could be construed to extrapolate a consensus from one or two other peoples' agreement.
but this comes across as good old fashioned American anti-intellectualism where we cannot establish a statistically significant result because we are afraid of going out in public without a concealed weapon.
Because discussions about concealed weapons in the US come naturally out of any discussion of peer review. And "American anti-intellectualism"? Ouch. He won't be able to show his face in public for weeks after that burn!
You seem to have a rather large number of fallacies (straw man, non sequitur, ad hominem to name the common ones I see right away in the above quoted bits) in your post for someone complaining about "anti-intellectualism". Now, I'm just another rube on the intarwebs, but it strikes me that using multiple fallacies in a short post is not the mark of an intellectual. Just saying.