Comments on: Is scientific peer review censorship? http://inpropriapersona.com/2010/02/is-scientific-peer-review-censorship/ Law + tech + history, from a JD/PhD graduate student in the history of science. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:32:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: unbound http://inpropriapersona.com/2010/02/is-scientific-peer-review-censorship/#comment-144 unbound Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:37:55 +0000 http://www.inpropriapersona.com/?p=2076#comment-144 Actually, it seems that the peer review process has gotten too easy.  What used to require definitive hypothesis and serious study of cause and effects has been replaced with statistical analysis that just barely reaches statistical significance.  It's becoming mainstream to have have a study of 2,000 to 10,000 people, look for any correlation data, and claim reduction of risk of 50% when 40 people have a condition with a commonality but only 30 have that condition with a different commonality...and this passes as scientific study? The other side of the coin is that if creationists can't even get by this poor state of peer review, you know they are truly nut jobs... Actually, it seems that the peer review process has gotten too easy.  What used to require definitive hypothesis and serious study of cause and effects has been replaced with statistical analysis that just barely reaches statistical significance.  It’s becoming mainstream to have have a study of 2,000 to 10,000 people, look for any correlation data, and claim reduction of risk of 50% when 40 people have a condition with a commonality but only 30 have that condition with a different commonality…and this passes as scientific study?
The other side of the coin is that if creationists can’t even get by this poor state of peer review, you know they are truly nut jobs…

]]> By: krisnelson http://inpropriapersona.com/2010/02/is-scientific-peer-review-censorship/#comment-143 krisnelson Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:42:33 +0000 http://www.inpropriapersona.com/?p=2076#comment-143 Denis, Granted, the Creationist angle makes this me suspicious, but I did want to at least consider the potential negatives of current approaches to peer review. Are improvements possible that might answer some of the criticisms? (Or is even considering it giving credence to what is simply not science?) Denis,

Granted, the Creationist angle makes this me suspicious, but I did want to at least consider the potential negatives of current approaches to peer review. Are improvements possible that might answer some of the criticisms? (Or is even considering it giving credence to what is simply not science?)

]]> By: Denis http://inpropriapersona.com/2010/02/is-scientific-peer-review-censorship/#comment-142 Denis Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:21:49 +0000 http://www.inpropriapersona.com/?p=2076#comment-142 Sounds like another creationist who can't find a good argument against modern biology so now she's decided to attack all scientists. Peer review is not censorship, peer review involves proving research methods and results before any new idea/theory is accepted as true. Sounds like another creationist who can’t find a good argument against modern biology so now she’s decided to attack all scientists. Peer review is not censorship, peer review involves proving research methods and results before any new idea/theory is accepted as true.

]]>