How reliable is 'peer review'?

media reports from the scientific and natural world, not specifically about dowsing.

How reliable is 'peer review'?

Postby Grahame Gardner » Thu Jan 14, 2016 9:53 am

An interesting blog post from Dr Rupert Sheldrake discusses the increasing tendency of scientists to hand-pick their very best results for publication, making it difficult for others to replicate the work and get the same results. Even if they do, journals would rather print original work so these experiments tend to be ignored, which casts doubt on the whole 'peer-reviewed' standard of benchmarking.
Rupert Sheldrake wrote:A member of Science’s staff wrote a spoof paper, riddled with scientific and statistical errors, and sent 304 versions of it to a range of peer-reviewed journals. It was accepted for publication by more than half of them.

It's an interesting read, and you can find it HERE.
The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it - Terry Pratchett.
User avatar
Grahame Gardner
Site Admin
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 4:52 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Return to Science & Nature

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest