Re: OT: about peer review

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: OT: about peer review
De : alien (at) *nospam* comet.invalid (Jan Panteltje)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 13. Jul 2024, 12:56:12
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <v6tq0t$hqb5$1@solani.org>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken.
  https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
   There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
>
It's a book that is designed to appeal to Cursitor Doom and other fans
of fatuous conspiracy theories.
>
"Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly
reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of
both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish."
>
One has to wonder how.
>
yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...
>
Not that Jan Panteltje can cite any.

Let's start with the endless one-stone babble, space is curved etc etc
Any clown can write formulas that approximate thing observed by some,
but understanding the mechanism is what counts.
vote-on particle, like vote-on some senile or some criminal..

Peer review isn't perfect,

depends on who does it.

Earth was flat and at the center of the universe for a long time
Not only was it very hard to get published, you got burned if your idea conflicted with current religious fanatic leadership.
These day the mantra is 'humans cause glow ball worming' and if you just put that in your paper it passes.

Same for much of that kwantuum stuff...

Same for no life signs have been found outside earth...
 http://www.gillevin.com/


but it
works better than anything else that anybody has come up with. It's very
good at cracking down on stuff that is obviously wrong. I haven't
refereed all that many scientific papers, but rejecting the ones that
were obviously wrong was remarkably easy, and took a lot less work than
finding and explaining more subtle errors.

The wrong ones are taken by the masses, like capitalism is the solution...


Date Sujet#  Auteur
13 Jul 24 * OT: about peer review20Jan Panteltje
13 Jul 24 +* Re: OT: about peer review2Cursitor Doom
13 Jul 24 i`- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman
13 Jul 24 +* Re: OT: about peer review7Bill Sloman
13 Jul 24 i`* Re: OT: about peer review6Jan Panteltje
13 Jul 24 i `* Re: OT: about peer review5Bill Sloman
16 Jul 24 i  `* Re: OT: about peer review4Jan Panteltje
16 Jul 24 i   `* Re: OT: about peer review3Bill Sloman
16 Jul 24 i    `* Re: OT: about peer review2Jan Panteltje
17 Jul 24 i     `- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman
13 Jul 24 +* Re: OT: about peer review7john larkin
13 Jul 24 i+* Re: OT: about peer review4Martin Brown
15 Jul 24 ii+* Re: OT: about peer review2john larkin
16 Jul 24 iii`- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman
15 Jul 24 ii`- Re: OT: about peer review1Don
14 Jul 24 i+- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman
14 Jul 24 i`- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman
13 Jul 24 `* Re: OT: about peer review3Martin Brown
13 Jul 24  `* Re: OT: about peer review2Cursitor Doom
14 Jul 24   `- Re: OT: about peer review1Bill Sloman

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal