Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

No convincing evidence of peer review’s benefits, lots of its flaws

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email
File:Flock of sheep.jpg
These researchers have just enough intelligence to keep them going. As it happens, none of it originates with them.

From Caroline Crocker at AITSE , on peer review:

If a scientific paper flies in the face of an established theory, will it be thrown overboard? According to Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, it might. He says that peer review, the process whereby the community of scientists assesses which papers are worth publishing, who should get tenure, which projects should be funded, and even who should be awarded a Nobel prize, does not work. In fact, “we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.”

See also: Rising numbers doubt honesty among scientists

Comments
Perhaps someone needs to start a journal for papers that were rejected by peer review but are still high quality. There would have to be some strict standards though. Otherwise, the editors would be innundated with crappy work. Collin
Ann Gauger offers a easy to understand outline of Meyer and Nelson's paper: In BIO-Complexity, Meyer and Nelson Debunk DRT - Ann Gauger Excerpt: There is no natural affinity between RNAs, amino acids, and codes. And the origin of life remains inexplicable in materialistic terms. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/in_bio-complexity_meyer_and_ne050041.html bornagain77
Here is a new peer reviewed paper in Bio-Complexity: Can the Origin of the Genetic Code Be Explained by Direct RNA Templating? Stephen C. Meyer and Paul A. Nelson http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.2/BIO-C.2011.2 bornagain77

Leave a Reply