Notice removed Citation needed by Sklivvz
4 added 11 characters in body
source | link

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review (they aren't going to generally perform a rigorous study to validate or invalidate the findings in the pre-publication step) to see if basic, remedial standards of professionalism have been followed before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been correctedundergone some correction or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review (they aren't going to generally perform a rigorous study to validate or invalidate the findings in the pre-publication step) to see if basic, remedial standards of professionalism have been followed before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review (they aren't going to generally perform a rigorous study to validate or invalidate the findings in the pre-publication step) to see if basic, remedial standards of professionalism have been followed before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have undergone some correction or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

3 added 147 characters in body
source | link

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review (they aren't going to generally perform a rigorous study to validate or invalidate the findings in the pre-publication step) to see if some very basic, remedial steps are takenstandards of professionalism have been followed before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review to see if some very basic, remedial steps are taken before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review (they aren't going to generally perform a rigorous study to validate or invalidate the findings in the pre-publication step) to see if basic, remedial standards of professionalism have been followed before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

2 added 1022 characters in body
source | link

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review to see if some very basic, remedial steps are taken before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review to see if some very basic, remedial steps are taken before publication.

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done.

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Pre-publication peer review is not supposed to catch all errors or mistakes. It's a relatively superficial review to see if some very basic, remedial steps are taken before publication.

Peer review is not currently designed to detect deception, nor does it guarantee the validity of research findings. It should, however, identify flaws in the design, presentation, analysis and interpretation of science and provide prompt, detailed, constructive criticism to improve research. (Lee, Bero, Nature (2006))

Nature (2006): Ethics - Increasing accountability; peer review debate

The actual post-publication process is the part that really is "peer review" - this is where methods, data and conclusions are rigorously examined and tested and conclusions about the validity of the papers is really done. No scientific finding is considered valid or accepted until other scientists have examined, critiqued and attempted to replicate results, using the same methods as the original experiments/studies, or different methods.

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the pre-publication peer review process. After being put to press, or having been digitally published, the process of peer review continues a publications are read.

Wikipedia: Scholarly peer review

By his own examination, 80% caught errors in the submitted papers, so in 80% of the cases the paper would have been corrected or not published as it was, and that's before the more rigorous post-publication review process. That means, in 80% of those cases, the paper would have been improved in the pre-publication process. That's quite different than "no evidence" of improvement. Mind you, catching some, but not all, errors is an improvement.

Sounds like his claims don't match with his data. Perhaps if he would have submitted his speech as a paper, it would not have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Notice added Citation needed by Sklivvz
1
source | link