Does Peer Review Promote Mediocrity?

[Helix]

I lack the standing to claim a contribution to improving peer review, so I content myself with facilitating discussion among those who, perhaps, can. The rest is just prejudice that you and you alone bring to the forum. You're not "calling" me on anything; you're just parading blind prejudice.

no, Jack, we all bring the prejudice of our own opinions to the discussion. the difference is that you're mostly interested in trying to debunk peer review in order to shore up your opinions about climate change. and also, as i said, i have firsthand experience with the peer review process. you do not.

 

[Threegoofs]

I think there is no question that peer review will stifle publication of truly unique and revolutionary articles.

That is almost always because those initial articles and findings are totally out of the mainstream and can be seen as borderline crackpot ideas.

BUT- you'll notice that all the cited articles were published- and they were not immediate revolutionary papers- they needed subsequent confirmation.

And I would guess that a control group of rejected papers that were found to be totally on the wrong track outnumbers these seminal papers by 100:1. And that's why peer review works- it keeps most of the nutty and half formed ideas out of the literature.

(Segue to Jack prattling on about Svensmark- and missing the point that the evidence points to the likelihood that it's a futile hypothesis)

 

[ecofarm]

That's fair, but I think the authors' point is that your approach will protect research quality in general but at the expense of stifling the rare sudden advance.

What makes you think there would be a sudden advance? A paper that most scientists disagree with is not likely to bring revolution to anything until much more work confirms it, and that would be going on regardless of where the article is published. So, really, there's no setback.

 

[Jack Hays]

no, Jack, we all bring the prejudice of our own opinions to the discussion. the difference is that you're mostly interested in trying to debunk peer review in order to shore up your opinions about climate change. and also, as i said, i have firsthand experience with the peer review process. you do not.

Another claim devoid of evidence. I think peer review is indispensable, but like all human endeavors it requires checks and balances. In that, I am on the side of Nature and PNAS. What side are you on?

 

[Jack Hays]

What makes you think there would be a sudden advance? A paper that most scientists disagree with is not likely to bring revolution to anything until much more work confirms it, and that would be going on regardless of where the article is published. So, really, there's no setback.

Please read the OP article. That's the point of the cited paper, and their research supports their conclusion.

 

[ecofarm]

Please read the OP article. That's the point of the cited paper, and their research supports their conclusion.

Read post #27 if you are still confused.

 

[Jack Hays]

Read post #27 if you are still confused.

Ah. I usually ignore 3G's rants. Indeed, the rejected papers cited in the OP were eventually published somewhere, but the fact remains that they were rejected in the controlled group used in the study. That suggests that other papers would be rejected in other similar groups, and ultimately some pathfinding research would not be published. 3G says this perhaps affects one paper in a hundred; the authors conclude it's two in a hundred. I'll go with their number since they did the research.

 

[ecofarm]

That suggests that other papers would be rejected in other similar groups, and ultimately some pathfinding research would not be published.

False. They will still be published, they will still require confirmation and the process of doing so progresses virtually unfettered. You act as if being published in PR makes something absolute fact and immediately changes the world - idiocy.

Do to a lack of understanding, you're turning a molehill into a mountain behind which to hide your climate BS.

 

[Jack Hays]

False. They will still be published, they will still require confirmation and the process of doing so progresses virtually unfettered. You act as if being published in PR makes something absolute fact and immediately changes the world - idiocy.

Do to a lack of understanding, you're turning a molehill into a mountain behind which to hide your climate BS.

I'm not turning anything into anything. I'm merely taking note of the concerns of PNAS and Nature. I think I'll rely on their judgment rather than yours.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think there is no question that peer review will stifle publication of truly unique and revolutionary articles.

That is almost always because those initial articles and findings are totally out of the mainstream and can be seen as borderline crackpot ideas.

BUT- you'll notice that all the cited articles were published- and they were not immediate revolutionary papers- they needed subsequent confirmation.

And I would guess that a control group of rejected papers that were found to be totally on the wrong track outnumbers these seminal papers by 100:1. And that's why peer review works- it keeps most of the nutty and half formed ideas out of the literature.

(Segue to Jack prattling on about Svensmark- and missing the point that the evidence points to the likelihood that it's a futile hypothesis)

FYI: In November Svensmark rose to #4 on the Oxford Journals hit parade.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during November 2014[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-readAstronomy & Geophysics


Dec 12, 2014 - Henrik Svensmark ... gender questions A&G (2014) 55 (6): 6.8-6.12 doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atu245 ..... Oxford Journals Oxford University Press.You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 11/22/14

 

[Threegoofs]

FYI: In November Svensmark rose to #4 on the Oxford Journals hit parade.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during November 2014[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-readAstronomy & Geophysics


Dec 12, 2014 - Henrik Svensmark ... gender questions A&G (2014) 55 (6): 6.8-6.12 doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atu245 ..... Oxford Journals Oxford University Press.You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 11/22/14

I usually ignore your rants, but I'll point out that the number of downloads for obscure stuff like this is almost certainly driven by know nothing hacks such as yourself accessing this from climate denier sites.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm not turning anything into anything. I'm merely taking note of the concerns of PNAS and Nature. I think I'll rely on their judgment rather than yours.

No, see... we're not here to debate them. We're here to debate you. I find the article questionable and your conclusions hyperbole. You pretend work not published in PR is left forever forgotten, lost; however, that's not the case (as demonstrated by the qualification within your article of citations).

You conjure a bunch of BS conclusions from the article you present. I believe that comes from not really understanding what you're reading, or doing so through a near impenetrable bias.

That's my assessment of your argument. I'm not gonna "take it up with the authors", I'm taking it up with you because it's your ****ed up conclusions and extrapolations I've beef with.

 

[Helix]

Another claim devoid of evidence. I think peer review is indispensable, but like all human endeavors it requires checks and balances. In that, I am on the side of Nature and PNAS. What side are you on?

i never argued that peer review doesn't benefit from oversight. i'm pointing out that your only interest in peer review is driven by your political agenda. my interest in it is due to the fact that i actually work in the field.

and you're on the side of Nature and PNAS? right. you spend most of your time here shilling against climate change.

 

[ocean515]

FYI: In November Svensmark rose to #4 on the Oxford Journals hit parade.

[h=3]Reports — Most-Read Articles during November 2014[/h]astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/reports/most-readAstronomy & Geophysics


Dec 12, 2014 - Henrik Svensmark ... gender questions A&G (2014) 55 (6): 6.8-6.12 doi:10.1093/astrogeo/atu245 ..... Oxford Journals Oxford University Press.You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 11/22/14

My goodness Jack. You've shown remarkable restraint when confronted by posters who are absolutely rocked by bias and prejudice. I found the article in the OP interesting, and your responses, especially in the face of absurd and illogical accusations, above reproach. That the group attacking you in the most juvenile of ways have received adult and reasonable responses from you is a testament to your values.

Well done. :applaud

 

[Deuce]

The right-wing assault on science continues.

 

[Jack Hays]

I usually ignore your rants, but I'll point out that the number of downloads for obscure stuff like this is almost certainly driven by know nothing hacks such as yourself accessing this from climate denier sites.

The denial is strong in this one.

 

[Jack Hays]

No, see... we're not here to debate them. We're here to debate you. I find the article questionable and your conclusions hyperbole. You pretend work not published in PR is left forever forgotten, lost; however, that's not the case (as demonstrated by the qualification within your article of citations).

You conjure a bunch of BS conclusions from the article you present. I believe that comes from not really understanding what you're reading, or doing so through a near impenetrable bias.

That's my assessment of your argument. I'm not gonna "take it up with the authors", I'm taking it up with you because it's your ****ed up conclusions and extrapolations I've beef with.

Since I've made no argument nor drawn any conclusions you apparently have no point beyond parading your prejudice.

 

[Deuce]

Since I've made no argument nor drawn any conclusions

Ahh yes the Glenn Beck defense.

 

[Jack Hays]

i never argued that peer review doesn't benefit from oversight. i'm pointing out that your only interest in peer review is driven by your political agenda. my interest in it is due to the fact that i actually work in the field.

and you're on the side of Nature and PNAS? right. you spend most of your time here shilling against climate change.

Respect for sound scientific process has nothing to do with a personal conclusion regarding a specific question. Surely you don't claim that such figures as Richard Lindzen, John Christy or Henrik Svensmark are opposed to peer review? Or even Judith Curry, who is hardly a skeptic but has written persuasively on behalf of the need to acknowledge uncertainty? Do you think they are somehow not on the side of PNAS or Nature? Sorry, but your argument is childish.

 

[Jack Hays]

My goodness Jack. You've shown remarkable restraint when confronted by posters who are absolutely rocked by bias and prejudice. I found the article in the OP interesting, and your responses, especially in the face of absurd and illogical accusations, above reproach. That the group attacking you in the most juvenile of ways have received adult and reasonable responses from you is a testament to your values.

Well done. :applaud

Thank you, and Merry Christmas, btw.:2wave:

In their zeal to attack me they have managed to put themselves in opposition to those who advocate scientific best practices.

 

[Jack Hays]

Ahh yes the Glenn Beck defense.

I never saw Glenn Beck so I don't know what that would be.

 

[Deuce]

I never saw Glenn Beck so I don't know what that would be.

"Just asking questions." A cover for making any kind of accusation you want.

Headline: Did Jack Hays kill and eat a unicorn in 2006?

 

[Jack Hays]

"Just asking questions." A cover for making any kind of accusation you want.

Headline: Did Jack Hays kill and eat a unicorn in 2006?

I did not ask a question either. Only the authors did that. I only presented their question.

 

[Deuce]

I did not ask a question either. Only the authors did that. I only presented their question.

Ahh, my mistake then. The Fox News defense.

People are asking whether or not Jack Hays killed and ate a unicorn in 2006.

Jack Hays has not responded to questions regarding whether or not Jack Hays killed and ate a unicorn in 2006. Click here for our poll: Did Hays kill and eat a unicorn in 2006?

 

[Jack Hays]

Ahh, my mistake then. The Fox News defense.

People are asking whether or not Jack Hays killed and ate a unicorn in 2006.

Jack Hays has not responded to questions regarding whether or not Jack Hays killed and ate a unicorn in 2006. Click here for our poll: Did Hays kill and eat a unicorn in 2006?

When PNAS publishes a paper to ask the question, and Nature publishes support for what PNAS has done, then it seems to me to be a question worth bringing to people's attention.