Does peer reviewed, dictate acceptance or should we discern

[Eumaois]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

In the social sciences (I'm a financial economist), peer reviewed means that one or more qualified reviewers found the article to be well-researched, well-written, and likely to be interesting to the readers of the journal. It does not mean the reviewers agree with the author or that the article's conclusions are "correct."

I am a reviewer for several journals.

There are also fake journals that accept articles they say are peer-reviewed but are not; you'd do best to avoid them.

What are some notable fake journals?

[Pyewackette]

Well the OP clearly has an axe to grind. Move along. No possibility of intelligent discussion here. He clearly just wants everyone to agree with him, same flaw as he accuses the peer review process of laboring under.

[Davidjayjordan]

No, I am here for intellectual and scientific progress, if people reject peer reviews of someone different than what has been told them or forced upon them, so be it.

As a past poster peer reviewer has stated... He doesnt want to force people into following any of his reviews, its just a WARNING. Good for the E's and A's and so good for the c's

SEE thread entitild What are yuou HEREAFTER biologically for the ABC equations

So do lighten up Pye, an axe to grind is a rather violent sounding similie. Dont feel so attacked, its just little old me, I might be 6'5" but I just ask a few questions and sharpen your minds in case you have inconsistencies and are bias and out of balance or are not basing your peer reviews on science and facts and principles.


If you want R remarks, truths or facts about the invisable or about design, do go to a resurrected thread on the Religion Forum..

//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...l#post52706842

As for the Science Forum, they dont allow creationists explaining design, math, physics, chemistry, and biological scientific facts and laws to be discussed. That thread was closed.

But maybe on the Religion Forum you can sneak in a scientific question, as talking science is not allowed there. There you must only talk about Religion...

Anyway, my **** is definitely been peer reviewed for years and years and years, and on innumerable forums.

[Larry Siegel]

Originally Posted by Eumaois

What are some notable fake journals?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/u...eal-thing.html

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by Pyewackette

Well the OP clearly has an axe to grind. Move along. No possibility of intelligent discussion here. He clearly just wants everyone to agree with him, same flaw as he accuses the peer review process of laboring under.

The same basis for every thread he starts. The best of any discussion he starts are those posts made by everyone but him.

[LesLucid]

Originally Posted by Larry Siegel

In the social sciences (I'm a financial economist), peer reviewed means that one or more qualified reviewers found the article to be well-researched, well-written, and likely to be interesting to the readers of the journal. It does not mean the reviewers agree with the author or that the article's conclusions are "correct."

I am a reviewer for several journals.

There are also fake journals that accept articles they say are peer-reviewed but are not; you'd do best to avoid them.

I mostly worked at the bench in research labs but I was asked to review a couple articles by my P.I. A person selected to review an article is usually chosen because they have expertise in an area of the submitted publication (mine was in technical aspects of light and electron microscopy).

Saying that a human is always completely unbiased is a stretch, as is saying peer review is all just political or a power play. Falsifiability is an important aspect of experimental science. If a reviewer can show a part of the submitted publication is falsified by previous published work, that is usually fatal. However, the usual intent is more mundane, merely to make sure the paper is technically correct in its claims, that the information presented is clear and understandable, basically the same kinds of things editors try to do with nonfiction works. Peer review is not a perfect system, none are, but I don’t know of a better one.