LogFAQs > #910706345

ITT: People don't know what "Peer Review" means

Romes187 posted...

Doesn't matter what department this happens in...definitely hurts the whole peer review industry...not that it wasn't already hurting.

Not really.

Peer review was "hurt" the moment it became an industry. Things like this have no real effect on it.

"Peer Review" in of itself doesn't mean anything, you can get any piece of research you want Peer Reviewed for about $200.

That's why if you look at any academic circles or serious discussion in research regardless of field, when people talk about research they don't say "This was peer reviewed" they say "This was peer reviewed by....." and say who it was, if they don't then everyone will bombard the with "Well then who peer reviewed it?"

Second to that, Peer Review doesn't mean "Peers agreed with the conclusions and the opinions of the person making the research." it means they checked the methodology and the science/logic/research adds up as legitimate.

So even if it's a credible Peer Review, that doesn't mean the conclusions are automatically justified. I.E If someone does research about how CO2 was really low during the Cretaceous Period but tempratures were really high, and his measurements, research, metholody, studying and reasoning for the figures he is presenting were accurate and solid. That would pass legitimate peer review.

Even if the guy said "Because of that, Man Climate Change isn't real!" that would have no effect or impact on the Peer Review of his research.

People who think Peer Review is a badge of honor or a defense of the opinions or goals of the people doing the research really don't "Get" what it actually is.
---

^ Hey now that's completely unfair.
https://imgtc.com/i/14JHfrt.jpg