Until it has been peer reviewed a paper is both potentially useful and potentially useless. Given the arrival of predatory academic publishing (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers) peer reviews are more important than ever.
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
I understand this: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [emphasis added] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
Obviously, a panel should not contain anyone who agrees in advance to give the paper favorable attention and help it get published. Yet a variety of journals have allowed or overlooked such practices.
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.
The peer review is funded by the same pharmaceutical giants who fund the drug research.
AUTHORITATIVE?? Like your Facebook fact checkers Fat Boomer?
No thanks, I prefer reliable, reproducible and unbiased research. Your communist authoritarian streak sure got exposed eh. So to recap:
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible.
The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
The fat Boomer failed again. No wonder everyone mocks you and laughs at you. Get boosted! Get as many boosters as possible so we can keep laughing at you.
Until it has been peer reviewed a paper is both potentially useful and potentially useless. Given the arrival of predatory academic publishing (https://libguides.usask.ca/predatorypublishers) peer reviews are more important than ever.
Here's a list of almost 300 papers about covid that have been retracted: https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/
Here's an overview of the process: http://eprints.rclis.org/39332/1/26964-465493240-1-PB.pdf
It says, in part: "Peer review has been in existence as a means of assessing the content before publication for more than 300 years. Possibly, it goes to the credit of the Royal Society that introduced peer review in Philosophical Transactions in 1752."
The TUCHIDIOT Super Spreader is so stupid, she can’t even understand a clinical study.
Stupidly gets downvoted on this forum.
I understand this: "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice." [emphasis added] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2
The fat boomer endorses peer reviewed studies that are not reproducible. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
The fat boomer posts POLITICO fact checks and pretends it is medical advice. (Then lies and denies it) https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
The fat boomer likes peer reviewed corrupt research that has preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma. https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
She has no suggestions for improving the peer review process folks, and her own link says it's the best process we have. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
And apparently she approves of the MSM that she agrees with.
The fat Boomer failed again. Never rely on Google Politico fact check, fat boomer.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
Folks, apparently V&C1 is arguing that this means any published paper should be taken at face value.
Or something.
Warning
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible.
The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
She's avoiding the question, isn't she folks?
I'll re-phrase it: should any published scientific paper be automatically taken at face value, without being examined by other experts in the field?
She can't answer directly, of course, because there are so many of them that support vaccination, masking up in crowded places, and so forth.
I know how peer review works. I’m still don’t think you do.
Which is more authoritative - a paper that has been published after peer review, or a paper that has been published before peer review?
AUTHORITATIVE?? Like your Facebook fact checkers Fat Boomer?
No thanks, I prefer reliable, reproducible and unbiased research. Your communist authoritarian streak sure got exposed eh. So to recap:
The fat boomer endorses research that is not reproducible. The fat boomer relies on POLITICO fact checkers for medical advice.
The fat boomer wants research to have preconceived conclusions funded by Pharma.
The fat Boomer failed again. No wonder everyone mocks you and laughs at you. Get boosted! Get as many boosters as possible so we can keep laughing at you.
https://www.pacificresearch.org/the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility/
https://drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2020/04/13/corruption-of-nih-peer-review/
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-top-journal-editors-get-paid-by-big-pharma-corrupt
https://www.brightworkresearch.com/the-often-hidden-problems-with-peer-review-research/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html
V&C1 doesn't want to talk about the paper under discussion (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full#T2)
A paper which clearly states it "should not be used to guide medical practice". Follow the link and read it yourself.
She wants to talk about Facebook instead, for some reason.
Stupid question. Majority of scientific studies get published first, followed by peer review.
It's a pretty straightforward question folks, and quite relevant since the paper in question has not been peer reviewed.
It's a shame ScoobyDoo has to duck and weave.