Guest Blackdog Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 If that wasn't a personal attack what do you mean by this? ...and those of you who are skeptics have really no idea of what you are even doing here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 TooRisky, on 22 April 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:Heck it is just another white collar phrase for ""what can we do to justify our pay because we really don't do any real work"" anyways... So if I made a similar statement about "blue collar" workers not really doing any work no one would be offended? Having been green, blue, and white collar at various times in my life, no, I wouldn't. Indeed, I worked with plenty of blue collar guys who leaned so much on their shovels that they ended up with bent handles, and the spade still had the original shine on it. We've all seen them on job sites. Indeed, I've had my favorite leaning tool, as well (I liked rakes.......they had longer handles, and the one at home is my favorite). I also had my favorite desk chair, too. Every job I ever had offered the same pace of frenzy today, boredom tomorrow, and interspersed with moments of terror now and then. I'm sure being someone who is commonly called to conduct peer review (who is that, anyway?) lives a similar pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Explain to me how you would all do a scientific peer review when none are scientists, most never go out to "Independently" find any evidence and those of you who are skeptics have really no idea of what you are even doing here... So on a peer level (You and me) is what I was talking about and what I wrote still applies, you either are not qualified and/or under educated in all aspects of making any judgement of your peers scientific or otherwise, thus the point of any thing peer review is mute... This is not a personal attack some seem to read into everything, this is an observation with cold hard truth blended in with it... No, that is you misunderstanding what is meant by "peer" in this case. Dr Meldrum's "peers" in the sense the OP is describing would be other primate anthropologists. Unless you or I are also primate anthropologists, then we are not "peers" in the sense of being qualified to review his work on it's technical merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 (edited) No, that is you misunderstanding what is meant by "peer" in this case. Dr Meldrum's "peers" in the sense the OP is describing would be other primate anthropologists. Unless you or I are also primate anthropologists, then we are not "peers" in the sense of being qualified to review his work on it's technical merits. Your premise is mistaken and your conclusion is wrong This isn't peer review. This is the Bigfoot Forums, on the Internet. The material we discuss is not submitted for consideration for publication. What few publications he has have already been reviewed. Most of what we talk about of his are not even research manuscripts or publications but are lay oriented popular material that he put in his book or has presented on some television or Internet radio show or at a Bigfoot convention. Edited April 25, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Your premise is mistaken and your conclusion is wrong This isn't peer review. This is the Bigfoot Forums, on the Internet. The material we discuss is not submitted for consideration for publication. What few publications he has have already been reviewed. Most of what we talk about of his are not even research manuscripts or publications but are lay oriented popular material that he put in his book or has presented on some television or Internet radio show or at a Bigfoot convention. I know that parn...way to belabor the obvious. The OP talked about the formal definition and function of "peer review". TooRisky took him to task on the mistaken belief that the OP had tried to say that BFF was peer review for Dr Meldrum, but that that he could not be peer reviewed here because we (as in forum members) were not qualified "peers" to review him. I was simply correcting HIS misunderstanding of the OP's point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 This isn't peer review. This is the Bigfoot Forums, on the Internet. The material we discuss is not submitted for consideration for publication. Hello? Isn't this what we're pounding to death on another thread? Not only is the material we discuss not submitted for consideration for publication, but the reverse is true as well: that which may be prepared for publication is not and will not be submitted here for amateurs to poison, pollute, and otherwise ruin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 ANYone who thinks that "peer review" in any case is all that valuable because the "scientific community" en bloc is super objective, unbiased, and rational would do well to review the sad tale of the campaign against the work of Bjorn Lomborg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 I'm writing a peer review this morning for a manuscript submitted to an environmental science journal. I'm open to everything the authors have presented for which they've made a solid case that their interpretation and methods are correct. They've also done and presented some things I think are not well supported. For those, I will recommend that the editor send them back to the drawing board and substantially revise the work. The editor will consider my comments, those of two others who've reviewed the manuscript, and his/her own impressions in making a decision on whether or not to publish it. I don't know the editor, the other reviewers, or the authors. If the manuscript is published, it will have been substantially improved by the collective reviewers' comments. If it is rejected for publication, the authors may opt to pursue publication in another journal. No, the process isn't perfect. Yes, some flawed science has made it into journals (Wakefield anyone?). By and large, however, the peer review process works as designed, and prevents poorly-supported conclusions from making it into print while substantially improving manuscripts of high quality work that ultimately do get published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Hello? Isn't this what we're pounding to death on another thread? Not only is the material we discuss not submitted for consideration for publication, but the reverse is true as well: that which may be prepared for publication is not and will not be submitted here for amateurs to poison, pollute, and otherwise ruin. Isn't there a federal office that prevents that... The MPA or something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Huntster, on 24 April 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:Hello? Isn't this what we're pounding to death on another thread? Not only is the material we discuss not submitted for consideration for publication, but the reverse is true as well: that which may be prepared for publication is not and will not be submitted here for amateurs to poison, pollute, and otherwise ruin. Isn't there a federal office that prevents that... The MPA or something like that? There's a federal office that prevents just about everything now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Do the editors and staff of a particular journal shape the process and therefore the product? Who assigns the reviews? So and so is easy, and so and so won't pass anything? Can a paper be set up for failure by the process? I know that in News there is a world of difference between the cultures that exist in newsrooms and that has a huge influence on the final product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Do the editors and staff of a particular journal shape the process and therefore the product? Who assigns the reviews? So and so is easy, and so and so won't pass anything? Can a paper be set up for failure by the process? I know that in News there is a world of difference between the cultures that exist in newsrooms and that has a huge influence on the final product. There is generally no direct profit motive in scientific journals, although there can be intense competition to publish truly ground-breaking research. Thus, the potential for corruption is a lot lower than we might see in the corporate world. That said, we could probably find an example of just about anything you can dream up: nepotism, papers published that should have been rejected, fraudulent data, etc. What I was trying to communicate was that in the vast majority of cases, peer review works exactly as it should. That's the primary reason scientific societies have stuck with it as the process through which they strive to develop an unimpeachable reputation for integrity in publishing their journals. Every time we have a "peer-review" discussion there will be some who bash the process, claiming an editorial bias against publishing "bigfoot papers." This is simply not true. There have been several papers on the subject published in legitimate journals and we have, of course, the editor of arguably the most prestigious journal (Henry Gee from Nature) making repeated statements that he would welcome submissions on the topic. For years I've been calling for people who claim editorial bias to provide evidence in the form of reviews and rejection letters from journal editors. I've not seen a single one. The peer review process is NOT the reason we lack a formal scientific description of bigfoot, the lack of bigfoot is the reason for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 There is generally no direct profit motive in scientific journals, although there can be intense competition to publish truly ground-breaking research. Thus, the potential for corruption is a lot lower than we might see in the corporate world. Most ground breaking research in the corporate world is NOT published externally. If it is published it's out of date and often key facts are left out, or are somewhat...misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 For years I've been calling for people who claim editorial bias to provide evidence in the form of reviews and rejection letters from journal editors. I've not seen a single one. The peer review process is NOT the reason we lack a formal scientific description of bigfoot, the lack of bigfoot is the reason for that. Would it be wise to expose a journal for their rejection to review a manuscript? Can they just refuse for no stated reason at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Do the editors and staff of a particular journal shape the process and therefore the product? Who assigns the reviews? So and so is easy, and so and so won't pass anything? Can a paper be set up for failure by the process? I know that in News there is a world of difference between the cultures that exist in newsrooms and that has a huge influence on the final product. Yep...CBS found that out the hard way, now didn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts