Chiropractors would say spinal adjustments would be needed.
Internal medicine would prescribe medications.
Physical therapists would prescribe exercise.
So why would anyone think that a climatologist would say anything other than man is causing global warming? Aren’t their findings biased because of their profession?
Isn’t it better to have a review of many scientists with different views to see if the facts stand on their own? Isn’t peer review just a way to get your buddies to vouch for you, so you can return the favor some day?
Would anyone accept a health care plan that was peer reviewed by Republicans? or a tax overhaul that was peer reviewed by only Democrats? Would that make any sense? Would these be the highest standard, or the worst endorsement that could be given? I am a Dr. Report Abuse Do you think Jello really fell for this transparently stupid identity? Report Abuse *LOL* Talk about the irony of having a buddy review your %26quot;research%26quot; here. Look at the question and then the %26quot;best%26quot; answer....kinda self-fulfilling prophecy, don%26#039;t you think? Report Abuse
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (17)
-
You are completely uninformed about the peer review process.
1) Most journals do it anonymously, so there aren%26#039;t any %26quot;buddies%26quot; involved.
2) While not perfect, many MANY errors in various studies have been caught by peer review, corrections done, and then a more accurate final article published
3) Peer review is only the first step. Every scientist who subscribes to the journals is also looking for errors or flaws in studies and commenting on them.
4) The best way for a scientist to gain prestige is to prove other scientists wrong. So there%26#039;s a built-in incentive to find holes and problem with other scientists research.
5) Peer reviewed studies of alternate explanations for climate change have also been published (most, long ago before sufficient data was available). They simply didn%26#039;t hold up to the scrutiny of other scientists or couldn%26#039;t be replicated.
Peer review isn%26#039;t perfect (it doesn%26#039;t have to be), but some advanced fact-checking and scrutiny by people who actually understand science and math is a whole lot better than the ignorant opinion pieces that doubters keep linking too around here. This is basic quality control.
and take a look at some of the discussions to get a feel for the exchange between authors and reviewers. Most of the time it is cordial but critical, other times it is downright nasty, but it is nearly always very rigorous and highly detailed. Of course, you can%26#039;t see the editorial decisions behind the reviews that lead to acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts, but they will be as balanced and considered as the reviews.
Anyway, if you had back problems and visited 10 orthopedic doctors, 4 might refer you to a surgeon, 3 might refer you to a physical therapist, 2 might prescribe drugs of some sort, and 1 would send you to a chiropractor. You don%26#039;t go directly to a surgeon, you get referred there after a primary care doctor (the orthopedist) refers you to him/her and no internist would see you for complaining of back problems, he would send you to an orthopedist. Aside from the fact your analogy is irrelevant as far as peer-review is concerned, your analogy is silly because you don%26#039;t understand how medical care works.
I know you are scared of climate change on a core level, but don%26#039;t shut your brain off.
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm -
Your question, especially the %26quot;tit for tat%26quot; part about getting your %26quot;buddies to vouch for you so you can return the favor some day%26quot; leads me to believe you have never been through the peer review process.
A young man I know recently submitted an article in a peer reviewed publication for doctors in a particular specialty. The documentation of his work was extraordinarily time consuming. He and the other three contributing authors spent more than a year working on the article. The %26quot;buddies%26quot; who reviewed the article were established physicians who ran independent laboratories; These well renowned individuals had absolutely nothing to gain from giving these four young people a %26quot;nudge, nudge, wink, wink%26quot; pass on the article. It was, in fact, rigorous and painstaking, and they got published. Other articles submitted for the same publication were turned down. Why would the board of review accept the work of these nobodies and turn down work of others if it were all just a matter of back-scratching?
You are simply wrong in your analysis, and your glibness makes any thing else you write suspect to me.
Your question: %26quot;Is peer review a good standard to determine facts.%26quot; Of course the review is only as good as the actual standards for the review. If those standards for review are as rigorous as the standards I%26#039;ve seen applied in medical journals directed toward specialists, then the answer is a resounding YES.