peer review.

[T.A.M.]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.

Part of our last year of med school, prior to our clinical clerkship, was a 12 week course in "critical analysis" which specifically focused on the critical analysis of scientific literature, more particularly on Medical Trials and Papers.

Since my graduation I have read literally hundreds, if not thousands of medical papers, and use the skills I was tought on ALL OF THEM.

Are their flaws in Peer Review...sure there are, but can it be counted on in terms of insuring that junk is kept out, I think so...for the most part.

Edit: I agree, in a perfect world, all papers for review would have the names removed for the Reviewer, the magazine at large retaining the name to insure the author was legit, and not a plagerizing hack. As well they SHOULD include full disclosure of financial support sources...

TAM

 

[Civilized Worm]

There are flaws in peer review just like there are flaws in democracy.

 

[Apollo20]

Civilized Worm:

Flaws in Democracy?

Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

 

[T.A.M.]

Any chance you would point out what part of the patriot act you have a problem with???

TAM

 

[Civilized Worm]

Civilized Worm:

Flaws in Democracy?

Oh, you mean like the Patriot Act and the suspension of Habeas Corpus?

I mean like people who think that AIDS was created by the government being allowed to vote.

 

[Corsair 115]

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil as does Brazil.

And which two countries in 2006 combined to supply over one-third of all U.S. crude oil imports? Hint: Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be incorrect answers.

 

[DGM]

Canada

 

[Slayhamlet]

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?

Wow, you are dense. Please read the words of people's responses before responding yourself, 'kay?

 

[Corsair 115]

Canada

Correct! That's #1. Now we just need #2...

 

[DGM]

Correct! That's #1. Now we just need #2...

Mexico

 

[Tony Szamboti]

On topic:

The present peer review process of scientific articles IS seriously flawed inspite of some, unsupported, BS, comments to the contrary on this thread. Do the individuals who express such opinions have ANY experience with reviewing SCIENTIFIC articles? I doubt it! And, by the way, I have seen a FRS and Professor of chemistry tell blatant lies to a journal when questioned about his review of a competitor's paper. And the same Professor kept porno magazines in his office desk to help pass the time! Ah, yes there are many upstanding scholars at our universities......

Anyway, I have a way to improve the peer review process that I have thought about for many years. It is this:

The paper should be sent to a reviewer with the author's name removed. In this way it is now an "anonymous" paper that could have been written by anyone. Of course the reviewer may recognize the style and associate the content with a particular individual, but the reviewer could never be sure of the authorship until the paper appeared. This would remove a lot of the bias that plagues the current peer review process. After all, there is absolutely no reason for the author's name to appear on the submitted paper!

What I am suggesting would not solve all the problems with peer review but I believe it would be a significant improvement.

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

Another issue would be subject bias.

 

[Gravy]

It certainly solves the problem of potential bias towards the individual author. All peer reviews should be blind.

Another issue would be subject bias.

The Journal of 9/11 Stundies takes a double-blind approach. The reviewers are blind in both eyes.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And which two countries in 2006 combined to supply over one-third of all U.S. crude oil imports? Hint: Saudi Arabia and Iraq would be incorrect answers.

Canada was one and I believe Mexico the other. That wasn't the point I was making though. I am saying that I believe we should make every attempt at becoming energy independent with renewable energies.

How long is the oil going to last?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

The Journal of 9/11 Stundies takes a double-blind approach. The reviewers are blind in both eyes.

How would you know?

What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?

Just because you read the NIST report hardly qualifies you as an expert in the design and failure analysis of structures.

The people at the Journal of 911 Studies may feel that your excuse for not being able to see might be because your head is in a location without sunlight.

 

[twinstead]

How would you know?

What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?

Just because you read the NIST report hardly qualifies you as an expert in the design and failure analysis of structures.

The people at the Journal of 911 Studies may feel that your excuse for not being able to see might be because your head is in a location without sunlight.

I would imagine the folks who contributed to the NIST report are the ones you should be asking these questions of. You know, all those people who ARE experts in the design and failure analysis of structures.

 

[Gravy]

How would you know?
What is your background other than being a NYC Tour Guide and what makes you qualified to make these comments if you are serious?

1) I'm not a paranoid, lying loon.

2) I give a damn about getting things right.

3) I've read the mind-blowingly idiotic papers there, you silly goose.

Does it trouble you that I can so easily pick out the errors in papers that passed "peer review" there? It should.

 

[Apollo20]

Realcddeal:

Did you know that Rembrandt van Rijn, the great Dutch painter, was famous for dark, foreboding, paintings, and was considered the founder of the GRAVY SCHOOL of art?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

1) I'm not a paranoid, lying loon.

Who says you're not?

2) I give a damn about getting things right.

Maybe you do, but that doesn't make you right.

3) I've read the mind-blowingly idiotic papers there, you silly goose.

You don't argue engineering issues and I don't think you are qualified to call them mind-blowing idiotic papers.

Does it trouble you that I can so easily pick out the errors in papers that passed "peer review" there? It should.

You may have read them but it doesn't appear you understood very well. All I ever see you do is quote the NIST report and complain that someone isn't willing to read it. That just isn't true. Concerning papers on the Journal of 911 Studies I only ever see you pick on insignificant minor issues and claim an author is cherry picking without backing up your claim other than a nebulous reference to NIST.

 

[Gravy]

You may have read them but it doesn't appear you understood very well. All I ever see you do is quote the NIST report and complain that someone isn't willing to read it. That just isn't true. Concerning papers on the Journal of 911 Studies I only ever see you pick on insignificant minor issues and claim an author is cherry picking without backing up your claim other than a nebulous reference to NIST.

Care to defend the Tony Szamboti paper, which you cited yesterday, and which passed "peer review?" This is the third time I've asked. He's a mechanical engineer and I believe you are also. I'm a lowly tour guide. Think you can handle it? Or you not so confident of the paper's merits anymore?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Care to defend the Tony Szamboti paper, which you cited yesterday? This is the third time I've asked. He's a mechanical engineer and I believe you are also. I'm a lowly tour guide. Think you can handle it?

I do agree with what is said in that paper. Of course, you will probably make it all about how he could say Bldg. 7 was obviously a controlled demolition and that NIST only tested floor trusses without fireproofing for calibration reasons. Spare me your nonsensical arguments. That is why I haven't jumped at your offer. Most of what I have seen you do cannot be called debate but an attempt to smear. Nobody wants to deal with that garbage.