View Single Post
  #120   Report Post  
Old 03-10-2003, 11:32 AM
BAC
 
Posts: n/a
Default say non to GM - Join the Tractors & Trolley Parade - Monday 13th October 2003 London


"Five Cats" wrote in message
...
In article , Michael Saunby
writes

"BAC" wrote in message
...

"Michael Saunby" wrote in message
...

snip

Peer review is about deciding whether an idea should become a part of

the
body of scientific knowledge, not whether it's good or bad for

society.
Some scientists really do have very strange ideas about their

importance.


Peer review is about deciding whether an article should be published in

a
'reputable' journal. That's important to people whose careers depend on
producing a flow of such published articles.


Sure, and once published whether or not others reference it will depend

on
many things, but once published it becomes possible. There are also the
trainspotting style - citation counters, who believe that if more peer
reviewed papers support some theory than refute it then that is also a
measure of something worthwhile - it probably isn't. Whatever the case,
peer reviewed science isn't the start (or end) of anything very much as

far
as technology is concerned.


Peer review is also (or should be) about looking for flaws in the
methodology etc. of the study - passing peer review doesn't mean an
article is worth-while, but failing it usually means it's a pile of
dodgy tosh.


Or perhaps that some score settling is being done.