Is Peer Review a Good Standard to Determine Facts?
May 16th, 2008 | by Michael |
Dr Jello asked:
If you had back problems and visited 10 surgeons, no doubt suggest surgery to remedy the problem. The Chiropractors say that the spinal recordings were necessary. The internal medicine prescription drugs. The physical therapists prescribe the exercise. What? perch? anyone would think that a climatologist saying anything except that man is causing global warming? ? t of? of Aren? influenced their results because of their profession? ? t of? of ISN? it pi? better to have an overview of many scientists with different views to see if the facts stand by s? The examination? t of? of ISN? just a way to convince your colleagues to vouch for you, so you can? return the favor some day? Anyone would accept a health program? that was the equal examined by Republicans? or a revision of the tax which was equal examined only by Democrats? That was the meaning? These are the pi? high level, or supporting pi? defect that could be given?
If you had back problems and visited 10 surgeons, no doubt suggest surgery to remedy the problem. The Chiropractors say that the spinal recordings were necessary. The internal medicine prescription drugs. The physical therapists prescribe the exercise. What? perch? anyone would think that a climatologist saying anything except that man is causing global warming? ? t of? of Aren? influenced their results because of their profession? ? t of? of ISN? it pi? better to have an overview of many scientists with different views to see if the facts stand by s? The examination? t of? of ISN? just a way to convince your colleagues to vouch for you, so you can? return the favor some day? Anyone would accept a health program? that was the equal examined by Republicans? or a revision of the tax which was equal examined only by Democrats? That was the meaning? These are the pi? high level, or supporting pi? defect that could be given?
18 Responses to “Is Peer Review a Good Standard to Determine Facts?”
By Kent M on May 17, 2008 | Reply
Actually even by these standards, peer review at the IPCC is pretty slim.
It’s agenda-driven - they start out with a premise and then seek to make a case for it. It’s not an open-ended investigation, it is a prosecution. That’s fine, that doesn’t automatically mean it’s not valid, but it does mean that you can’t just dismiss the defense - someone who received a grant from an energy company - out of hand.
Either bias means we ignore what you say (in which case there are about six people left in the room) or we understand where you’re coming from but hear you out.
They adopted the Hockey Stick with virtually no peer review - and then when they reluctantly allowed review they had to backtrack on a lot of it.
Now even by their models we don’t have a hockey stick, we have what locks like one of those snow shovels for people with bad backs - we have a MWP that even they concede was as warm as 1st half of the 20th century temps and remained that warm for 200 years.
By rhsaunders on May 20, 2008 | Reply
Yes. “Facts” aren’t considered factual unless they have either been seen by others, or have passed a basic sanity check. If someone proposed an article for a scientific journal that pigs could fly, the referees would take a very close look at the evidence.
By Nemesis on May 21, 2008 | Reply
Scientists are not in agreement (wake up, Al Gore!) that man causes global warming. Peer review is good–sometimes it can be a bit tricky as there are so many “esoteric” areas of science that some times it is difficult for a person in one field to critique another field. HOWEVER, too often BASICS of science get overlooked and nonsense talked. In many cases, literally doing the math will reveal errors.
Generally I don’t think scientists are too much into the “buddy system” (certainly not as much as lobbyists and politicians, for example!). When you KNOW something is very wrong, however, is when the reaction to a challenge in science is
hysteria
claims that it’s been “decided”
or charges that you’re being “paid” to disagree (or agree)
None of those are scientific responses. You should be able to defend a position based on its merits–not having to sling mud.
By Benjamin on May 23, 2008 | Reply
If you had a tumor, then why would you go see a physical therapist or chiropractor? I’d go and see an Oncologist first. When the climate is changing, then it only makes sense to look to the climatologists for answers.
Your analogies are rather silly. A better one would be: If you write an English Lit novel, should you look for an English speaking editor or a French speaking editor?
By Ken on May 26, 2008 | Reply
You are completely uninformed about the peer review process.
1) Most journals do it anonymously, so there aren’t any “buddies” involved.
2) While not perfect, many MANY errors in various studies have been caught by peer review, corrections done, and then a more accurate final article published
3) Peer review is only the first step. Every scientist who subscribes to the journals is also looking for errors or flaws in studies and commenting on them.
4) The best way for a scientist to gain prestige is to prove other scientists wrong. So there’s a built-in incentive to find holes and problem with other scientists research.
5) Peer reviewed studies of alternate explanations for climate change have also been published (most, long ago before sufficient data was available). They simply didn’t hold up to the scrutiny of other scientists or couldn’t be replicated.
Peer review isn’t perfect (it doesn’t have to be), but some advanced fact-checking and scrutiny by people who actually understand science and math is a whole lot better than the ignorant opinion pieces that doubters keep linking too around here. This is basic quality control.
By pantagruel on May 27, 2008 | Reply
So if you don’t want to be sick,will your disease go away if you find a quack doc to agree with you? No, the debate on the concensus is not constructive,or needed. In fact,it tends to look like the ‘deniers’ are extremely ignorant of real Science! Clinging to obscure fringe views,and outdated religious dogmas,to make your case,is not fooling anyone! You have the false opinion that just posting snarky and un-scientific comments will convince anybody. It won’t!
By Richard on May 27, 2008 | Reply
I think your analogy with republicans and democrats is flawed. First of all, they are all politicians. Secondly, they have different viewpoints based on values and beliefs. Scientists base their views on scientific data. At least that is the hope.
Peer review between different scientists is happening and it’s the only option which has worked throughout history. There will always be certain people with a bias, but they are all human and you can’t remove the human element. We must trust them to be impartial with the data.
Just because you don’t think the present system is working doesn’t make it so. History has proved it to be a robust solution. The day “armchair” scientists start influencing policy is the day science and the world will be thrown into chaos.
By dad on May 28, 2008 | Reply
I agree totally with you Just as i have been talking about nanodetonators in here in the past and all the geniuses in here would say its a crock there is no way for cold fusion suppressing any notion of any new idea because they went to college and there teacher said ” NO ” kind of like the blind leading the blind now they are about to embark on phase 2 with the prototype all dealers in place and with an investor thats going to fund it all going to launch this summer .
I find it funny how humans act like monkeys. They dont do anything until they see another monkey doing it . Just like the war everyone following Bush you know the leader . He said they had devices of mass destruction so like a bunch of monkeys we followed him killing a bunch of innocent people and still killing them . Where are all the devices of mass destruction?
Same with global warming . Why cant there be other reasons for global warming other then man. Why because one monkey said so ? Come on people stop acting like monkeys . Its called the monkey effect look it up . Explore your options with an opened mind stop playing follow the leader . I did now I’m going to be a millionaire this time next year
By Tomcat on May 31, 2008 | Reply
The people that continually pound the table about the reliability of peer review are hypocrites when it comes to global warming. I do not see anyone supporting the GISS surface record with peer reviewed work, and it is very obvious that it would not pass.
By Mark Anthony on Jun 4, 2008 | Reply
Depends on the peers you choose to review your findings. For myself I would choose those who are honest and forthright with no real agenda. I would want people who disagree and state why they disagree. Differing views help make for more informed decisions. However the Global warming debate is not about information its about blame and bashing. That’s not science, and it prevents real discourse and sound decision making.
By Bob on Jun 5, 2008 | Reply
Peer review is accepted because it works.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s accept your premise. The fact is that scientists in ALL fields do accept the reality of global warming. Because the data proving it is overwhelming.
The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.
Chemists and physicists are not climatologists. I assume you’ll now concede the reality of global warming?
Heretic - The IPCC has multidisciplinary environmental scientists on it.
By gcnp58 on Jun 6, 2008 | Reply
From what you’ve written it doesn’t sound like you have any practical experience with peer-review, either as a reviewer, editor, or author. I have no illusions you will actually do this, but for you to see how ridiculous your question is and how bad your analogies are, it would be helpful to you to go to this website:
and take a look at some of the discussions to get a feel for the exchange between authors and reviewers. Most of the time it is cordial but critical, other times it is downright nasty, but it is nearly always very rigorous and highly detailed. Of course, you can’t see the editorial decisions behind the reviews that lead to acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts, but they will be as balanced and considered as the reviews.
Anyway, if you had back problems and visited 10 orthopedic doctors, 4 might refer you to a surgeon, 3 might refer you to a physical therapist, 2 might prescribe drugs of some sort, and 1 would send you to a chiropractor. You don’t go directly to a surgeon, you get referred there after a primary care doctor (the orthopedist) refers you to him/her and no internist would see you for complaining of back problems, he would send you to an orthopedist. Aside from the fact your analogy is irrelevant as far as peer-review is concerned, your analogy is silly because you don’t understand how medical care works.
I know you are scared of climate change on a core level, but don’t shut your brain off.
By Crispy bacon, eggs and tomatoes! on Jun 8, 2008 | Reply
No, if the “facts” are important then one should always employ a wide range of “informed” people/specialists to review them and to report back. Even THEN IT IS UP TO US, THE PUBLIC, TO ASK THE PERTINENT QUESTIONS AND , WITH ALL THE “FACTS” AVAILABLE TO ASSIST ENSUING DECISIONS.
By Heretic on Jun 8, 2008 | Reply
So (Bob) is saying in paraphrased terminology …That climatologist are not chemist,environmentalist,or physicist?I thought it was a panel of scientific diversity, that would best suite environmental studies?Climatologist are not and never will be included as an interdisciplinary field,which corresponds to the subject at hand.
Bob, Thanks I just wanted an admission, that climatologist are very limited to environmental reasoning.
By evans_michael_ya on Jun 9, 2008 | Reply
Sure and:
Special Olympics judges should be “special”…
Police should police cops…
Politicians should govern the conduct of politicians…
A jury of one’s peers should be comprised of citizens charged with like crimes…
By karen star on Jun 10, 2008 | Reply
Your question, especially the “tit for tat” part about getting your “buddies to vouch for you so you can return the favor some day” leads me to believe you have never been through the peer review process.
A young man I know recently submitted an article in a peer reviewed publication for doctors in a particular specialty. The documentation of his work was extraordinarily time consuming. He and the other three contributing authors spent more than a year working on the article. The “buddies” who reviewed the article were established physicians who ran independent laboratories; These well renowned individuals had absolutely nothing to gain from giving these four young people a “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” pass on the article. It was, in fact, rigorous and painstaking, and they got published. Other articles submitted for the same publication were turned down. Why would the board of review accept the work of these nobodies and turn down work of others if it were all just a matter of back-scratching?
You are simply wrong in your analysis, and your glibness makes any thing else you write suspect to me.
Your question: “Is peer review a good standard to determine facts.” Of course the review is only as good as the actual standards for the review. If those standards for review are as rigorous as the standards I’ve seen applied in medical journals directed toward specialists, then the answer is a resounding YES.
By gomanyes562 on Jun 11, 2008 | Reply
Peer review has been the lifeblood of the scientific community for hundreds of years. Funny how no one questions it except for the politically controversial issues.
Editors of journals send articles to qualified scientists from all relevant disciplines, and the reviewers attempt to verify the experiments and conclusions. Unlike politics, there is a right or wrong answer in science.
By Doctor in Climatology on Jun 13, 2008 | Reply
No, I have been doing much research on global warming. The thing is I can’t get funded because of the results I find. No scientist will review my work because of the results I have found. It does not fit what the consensus is looking for so they throw it out. My results suggest that global warming is a natural phenomenon.