Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 11:
Line 11: − + − + +
→kidding right?
:[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:[[Peer review]] is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be checked by other scientists. If an article fails peer review, it is either because (1) the research was so poorly conducted or described that there's no point in other scientists bothering with it, or (2) it represents such a challenge to established scientific belief that the journal chooses to suppress it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:27, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Woah!!! PoV. How about "(2) Results are not supported by results from other researchers and cannot be explained according to our current understanding. Therefore, there is a good chance that the results are erroneous". If the data are good enough, they will be published. There is no incentive on a journal to suppress research just because it doesn't fit the paradigm. The only incentive is for the journal to not publish high-profile research which is later proved to be wrong, which is embarrassing for the journal. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]
:::There is evidence that journals ''do'' decline publishing ideas that go against the currently-popular paradigm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]