{"id":10988,"date":"2012-03-14T03:00:59","date_gmt":"2012-03-14T08:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/?p=10988"},"modified":"2012-03-14T03:00:59","modified_gmt":"2012-03-14T08:00:59","slug":"stop-deifying-peer-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/archives\/10988","title":{"rendered":"Stop Deifying Peer Review"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/phylogenomics.blogspot.com\/2012\/02\/stop-deifying-peer-review-of-journal.html\">Stop deifying &#8220;peer review&#8221; of journal publications<\/a><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I would like to add my two cents now &#8211; focusing on the exalted status some give to peer reviewed journal articles.  I have three main concerns with this attitude which can be summarized as follows<br \/>\n1.  Peer review is not magic<br \/>\n2.  Peer review is not binary<br \/>\n3.  Peer review is not static.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In general discussion, a peer-reviewed article is often a better citation than a mainstream\/pop-sci article, but one has to acknowledge that peer-review simply means that some professionals have looked at it and found no (obvious) errors in the work.  Mistakes can be made, things can be overlooked.  Even without that, peer-review doesn&#8217;t mean the results are true.  The full process of scientific inquiry means others have to replicate the work somehow, if it&#8217;s experiment, or test the work, if it&#8217;s theory.  As the article says, this is a continual process, and as I&#8217;ve <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/archives\/10058\">said before<\/a>, every experiment is a test of the principles that underlie it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Stop deifying &#8220;peer review&#8221; of journal publications I would like to add my two cents now &#8211; focusing on the exalted status some give to peer reviewed journal articles. I have three main concerns with this attitude which can be &hellip; <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/archives\/10988\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10988","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/blogs.scienceforums.net\/swansont\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}