Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:06:22 UTC No. 16490121

>>16489592
peer review doesnt work, has never worked, will never work.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:08:21 UTC No. 16490123

Peer review is merely a consensus on interpretations of data. Nothing more, nothing less.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:14:38 UTC No. 16490132

>>16490123
its a lot more than that, peer review also determines what data is gathered to begin with since research grant applications also go through the peer review process

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 03:56:42 UTC No. 16490160

>>16490123

its basically ad populum fallacy. no wonder most scientist in this century are terrified of philosophers.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 05:17:15 UTC No. 16490202

>>16490132
Grant proposals aren't granted by your peers. They're granted by retards who accept whatever the peer reviewed consensus says is sexy.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 10:46:45 UTC No. 16490321

cringe thread.
only because humans are fallible does this process have flaws.
we have nothing better and we will never have anything better.
so stop being faggots and move to topics we can work on.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:49:10 UTC No. 16490617

>>16490321
Replication.
You have been refuted.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 17:56:09 UTC No. 16490626

>>16490123
means taboos aren't researched or discussed, such as genetic diversity of humans leading to socioeconomic outcomes

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 18:02:43 UTC No. 16490633

>>16489592
>the scientific method
that doesn't solve anything. people need IQ and moral integrity. evil retards can use the scientific method too.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 18:24:47 UTC No. 16490659

Even watching the remake of the cosmos show, they make an episode specifically stating that "science" has been used for political agendas since the beginning of time.

You fags act like whenever there is some kind of scandal it's a bad thing. It's just proof that people are scrutinizing studies to a greater degree then ever before.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Nov 2024 19:18:01 UTC No. 16490733

>>16490617
And how will allowing people to publish any nonsense improve replication?

>>16490132
And how else do you allocate funding? It's not a scientific question.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 04:02:40 UTC No. 16491261

>>16490733
maybe read his post again nigger.

replication is necessary for science.

there is currently no requirement for replication when publishing research.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 06:22:25 UTC No. 16491353

>>16491261
Oh yeah, let me read it again.
>Replication
Oh, that explained absolutely fucking nothing. OP attacks peer review without explaining any alternative scenario.

>there is currently no requirement for replication when publishing research.
I didn't say there was. Read my post again.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 06:41:27 UTC No. 16491360

>>16491353
Oh dear, I thought the internet was dead, not stupid. WAHHHHH

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 07:15:59 UTC No. 16491375

>>16491360
Why is it such a burden to explain your argument? I don't understand what you or OP thinks will magically happen if peer review disappears. I don't think you know either. OP giving one word answers only demonstrates his lack of thought on the topic.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 09:16:07 UTC No. 16491438

>>16489592
I keked

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 09:58:06 UTC No. 16491453

>>16489592
On linear regression the R^2 would show that correlation was shit, what is that image trying to show?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 10:22:55 UTC No. 16491465

>>16491353
>OP attacks peer review without explaining any alternative scenario.
and exactly this was his intention. hes is a retarded faggot, anon. or a bot. or both.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:30:43 UTC No. 16491495

>>16491375
Soientists will never admit peer review is a recent concept and that "science" worked just fine before it. If anything peer review is what's killing science.
>But muh advancements in technology!
That's the tech sector and requires parents, not peer review. It's not science.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 11:41:23 UTC No. 16491499

>>16491495
You still didn't answer my questions:

>And how will allowing people to publish any nonsense improve replication?

>And how else do you allocate funding?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:32:55 UTC No. 16491574

>>16491495
throw away your tech if you believe science is not working.
protip: if you dont do it, you believe in science.
now be a angry retard somewhere else.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:35:32 UTC No. 16491575

hey I just found out when I mention putins dick is small /pol/ threads finally get deleted.
fucking top kek

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 13:41:29 UTC No. 16491577

>>16489592
I had a paper I spent 6 months on rejected by the reviewers. Wanna kms

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 15:41:31 UTC No. 16491632

>>16491574
Zoomer take.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:22:45 UTC No. 16491656

>>16490617
Peer review isnt some kind of alternative to the scientific method. Its just a filter to decide what gets published in some specific journal. You can publish your research online and have the world replicate it. No one reads papers anyway

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:33:08 UTC No. 16491663

>>16489592
You probably don't even know what regression is lol

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 18:33:34 UTC No. 16491777

>>16489592
>what's the r-squared value?
WOW THAT WAS SO HARD

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:06:01 UTC No. 16491878

>>16491574
scientists don't invent technology, other people do that. scientists only claim that they do because they have nothing worthwhile of their own to brag about. stealing credit for things other people have done is intellectual property theft

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 20:08:21 UTC No. 16491884

>>16491574
this offends the /pol/tard.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 21:27:41 UTC No. 16491984

>>16491574
This. If your work does not result in new tech, you're not a scientist.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:15:17 UTC No. 16492071

>>16490121
It did work when academia was still a high-stakes, gate-kept ivory tower.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Nov 2024 23:16:32 UTC No. 16492074

>>16490123
Bullshit. Peer review currently means you know the reviewers, the reviewers know you, and if you're publishing in their fields they will destroy your paper, if not, they'll make you cite their papers to gain le h index.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:00:18 UTC No. 16492123

>>16489592
peer review was never meant to be a measure of proof, but just a way to subject a write-up to a sniff test by others who are skilled in the art. it's mostly political now, unfortunately, because the threat of being "cancelled" (including assault and job loss) is a somewhat recent phenomenon and academic types are generally spineless in the first place.
proof would be measured by how successfully the results claimed in a peer reviewed paper are replicated.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 00:30:57 UTC No. 16492160

>>16492123
>peer review was never meant to be a measure of proof, but just a way to subject a write-up to a sniff test by others who are skilled in the art.
Wrong, it was always intended as a means of censoring nonconformists.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 01:22:36 UTC No. 16492234

>>16492160
>nonconformists
99% of whom are absolute crackpots.
notice the journal of analytical chemistry hasn't published alchemy.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 07:10:45 UTC No. 16492563

>>16492234
>analyticAL CHEMistrY
that is weird

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Nov 2024 10:53:48 UTC No. 16492665

>>16492160
Your utopia already exists OP. It's called viXra, and anyone can submit whatever they want.

https://vixra.org/

A quick perusal will demonstrate how utterly useless it is. It is filled with nonsense from crackpots, just mind diarrhea. And even if there are some gems in there, who have a serious paper which was blocked by the big bad reviewers, you're never going to find it under the mountain of shit.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 01:06:54 UTC No. 16493546

>>16492665
>It is filled with nonsense from crackpots, just mind diarrhea.
how is that different from the replication crisis journals?

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 01:17:06 UTC No. 16493559

>>16493546
Less tax payer plundering.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 21:35:51 UTC No. 16494514

>>16490633
They can't because the scientific method is a subset of Christianity. Only Christians are capable of employing the scientific method, it was developed by Christians based on the premise that Christians would be the ones using it.
Without the underpinnings of Christianity the scientific method ceases to function.

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:51:21 UTC No. 16494589

>>16491375
"Peer review is broken" is just code for "peer review rejected my obviously brilliant and super awesome ideas because they are afraid of my unquestionable genius and my larger-than-average penis!"

Is peer review perfect? Of course not, and there is always room for it to improve as a system of critique and evaluation. But it is a far, FAR superior alternative to the raw, unfiltered, unregulated cluster that passes for online journals of whatever-the-fuck.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 01:49:40 UTC No. 16495736

>>16494589
>"Peer review is broken" is just code for "peer review rejected my obviously brilliant and super awesome ideas because they are afraid of my unquestionable genius and my larger-than-average penis!"
You should stop projecting your effeminate persecution complex and penis envy on everyone else.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 09:51:22 UTC No. 16496038

>>16490617
Replication is a form of peer review, its just that after all the low hanging fruit was picked, science had to shift to more abstract theories which aren't so much physically replicated as that their logic is reviewed by "experts" who have proven their logical capabilities through academia and industry, so they couldn't just call it replication because just copy-pasting someone's logic to replicate their writings doesn't actually do much to confirm that their logic was reasonable.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 11:54:25 UTC No. 16496108

>>16496038
It isn't logic. It doesn't detect fraud. It doesn't do anything but provide a means for unqualified gatekeeping. You have never participated in peer review and it shows.
Replication is not peer review.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 14:37:24 UTC No. 16496188

>>16496108
>It doesn't detect fraud.
Do you have some data to back that up, or is this just your opinion?
And fraud isn't the only reason a paper could be wrong, you ignore the possibility of honest mistakes. Peer review offers an outside perspective to identify obvious errors before they are published. Removing that is only going to result in more wrong papers, which aren't attempted to be replicated because they are obviously wrong. It can also improve a paper by considering new perspectives on the arguments.
Then there are things like statistical analyses. Lots of numerical results are quantified with some significance, but that calculation is based on assumptions, which may be too simplistic.
>You have never participated in peer review and it shows.
How many papers have you personally reviewed? I can say I have reviewed 4, one of which the authors chose to retract after I pointed out their mistake. I did not reject it, I presented my argument and allowed them to amend it but they decided otherwise.

Also if you want to avoid peer review there are plenty of predatory journals out there for free thinkers. There is nothing stopping someone from putting a paper out there.

Anonymous at Thu, 28 Nov 2024 21:27:26 UTC No. 16496552

>>16496188
Do you have some data call >>16496108 into dispute, or is this just your opinion?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 05:17:16 UTC No. 16497930

>>16496552
just my opinion

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 07:56:48 UTC No. 16498054

>>16489592
The scientific establishments today are just the modern versions of the religious establishments in the past.

Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 15:15:21 UTC No. 16498255

>>16496188
My first paper was rejected by peer review, claiming that the model we’d used for interpreting our probe data didn’t apply to our case.

After reviewing all of our work it turned out they were right, we built a new probe, and used another model to run the same experiment and got a null result.

People make honest mistakes or use the wrong models or misinterpret results. Happens all the time. That’s why you have a system in place for people to check each other’s work.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 30 Nov 2024 17:16:56 UTC No. 16498342

religious establishments in the past created all of the world's most admired architecture, inspired and funded the creation of the world's greatest works of art. academia does nothing of that sort

Anonymous at Sun, 1 Dec 2024 02:42:34 UTC No. 16498820