Popular Post MarkusBarkus Posted January 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 4, 2021 43 minutes ago, pkane2001 said: Any complex study, especially involving multiple test subjects, can only be reviewed for structural, logical, and mathematical errors. The actual results of such a study need to be replicated to be verified. It's true the replication of experiments and studies are critical; however, most of the articles and findings which are published (any field) are not large studies (like the Covid19 studies in the news), they are smaller findings describing mechanisms, structures, or behaviors (grossly over simplified list). These could be macro (cosmic) or micro (protein folding, binding sites, crystal structures, etc.). The integrity of the findings is critical because they are often foundational for advancing other work, or validating investigations others are working on. Sometimes submitting authors have an idea who is reviewing the papers. Some journals you can request reviewers (not guaranteed). Typically, there are three reviewers. Usually one is out of their depth. They refute findings, and/or require experiments to be completed to support the author's assertions. It often takes many months, a year, to satisfy reviewers and editors before publication. Peer review may not be "knighthood" but it's the best process IMO, we have. And there is absolutely a hierarchy of journals, impact factor ratings, etc. Some journals take almost anything. And scientists know who they are. The existence of two distinct "avenues" for publication is probably a good source of confusion (best case) or exaggerated/unsubstantiated claims (or worse). This similarly surfaced during the Covid19 information overload. Journos were reading pre-publication results, not yet peer reviewed, and publishing it as agreed-upon science, or "Science" upper case. Whether they even understood what was pre-published is another matter. The non-peer reviewed articles are just informational/interesting/food for thought. It ain't hard-science. Most of what we read about hifi stuff is "just" a white paper. Not meant as derogatory. The hifi product model is interesting, because the customers are kind of the study participants. Did I wander OT? Sorry. KeenObserver, DuckToller, Solstice380 and 1 other 4 I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
Popular Post MarkusBarkus Posted January 4, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 4, 2021 37 minutes ago, Allan F said: It is all well and good that "peers are industry experts and professors that are aware of standards in their fields and standards for journal publication". Of greater importance, however, is whether they adhere to those standards. ...often, the peer reviewers are competitors, actually. And there have been cases of reviewers beginning "new" areas of research based on something they "reviewed." That said, IMO generally speaking, folks seem collegial and respectful. And actually, the better/higher the science, the fewer people exist--on the planet--to review it. In this regard, I guess I would echo the unnamed email respondent, most folks would not be able to evaluate or even understand the bleeding edge stuff--or maybe even more "ordinary" publications. Some, of course, would be. It's not a publishing cabal of reviewers and editors, IMO, although there must be a greater-than-zero possibility that "favors" are done. It is not a perfect system, by any means, but the anonymity is intended to prevent grudges, rather than helping buddies out. It usually works out OK, but it is very slow. And...it's possible to get scooped. Just by way of example: Here is my favorite article title from one of last week's journals around the house: "Galactosaminogalactan Activates the Inflammasome to Provide Host Protection." Not engineering, I fully understand, but my point is it would be challenging, IMO, to find many folks who could usefully criticize the contents or the motivations of the reviewers or editors. It seems like we could, but I don't think we actually could, in most cases. BTW re: above article: Received 3/4/20 Accepted 9/23/20 Published Online 12/2/20 I think @ The Computer Audiophile identifying for us that there are two paths for publication is very useful. As @botrytiswrote, the non-peer reviewed stuff is essentially marketing, or "this looks interesting" level stuff. The Computer Audiophile, Thuaveta and sandyk 3 I'm MarkusBarkus and I approve this post. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now