LGBT shuts down science

[John V]

The methodology, and the peer review, were probably fine. It's the implications that some people don't like, and Brown caved to them.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It's still better than not having any peer review. As Aoi Magi points out, peer review is a continual process. It happens before a paper gets published, and this is a very useful step. But once it is published, it's opened up to a much wider audience of scientists who can then look for evidence for and against and come up with competing hypotheses and explanations. This is also a form of peer review.

Just because two or three scientists have read a paper and accepted it doesn't mean that the paper is also accepted by the wider scientific community. As for politics, you get it every where. But if the methodology is correct then most will accept a paper for publication even if they do not agree with it because they are also aware that they might be wrong and the scientific community needs all the evidence to analyse.

Problems with repeatability are not due to the scientific method but economic considerations. Scientists are judged according to metrics and this translates to how well they are funded. For example if you try to reproduce some results and find that you cannot, the more prestigious journals like Nature won't be so keen to publish them as novel research because they are looking to increase their sales. The study can be still get published elsewhere but because scientists are judged by the impact factor of where they publish this hurts their funding. So there is less incentive to reproduce other people's work to check that it is correct.

So then, most of the peer review happens outside of and really apart from the publishing process. 

I did not say that in the slightest.

My disagreement is mostly when people over-emphasize only the publishing part of the process as the be all, end all.  I do believe that it could be better, if it was more transparent, and we could know why it was rejected.

How could it be more transparent? Reviews write reviews. It's what they do. They will tell you why a paper was rejected. Normally for very good reasons. The author takes the comments on board, writes a better paper and then resubmits it again, or to another conference / journal. Sometimes it's not that the science is bad but you haven't managed to communicate the ideas effectively. Science is built upon the communication of ideas and results.

  It's understandable that a journal can pick what it wishes to publish, but it may not always be for problems with the research as you point out.  It seems that some are skipping the publishing process all together, and sharing their information in more open platforms to begin with or along with submitting it to a journal.  It's faster, cheaper, and less red tape to get to the wider audience for evaluation.   I think that you are going to see more of this in the future.   The politics and push to publish, I think is leading to cheap science, and hurtful to the field.

It depends on the field. For example, checking your own results can be extremely difficult and you may want to get other people's help checking for any flaws before it is published. This leads to stronger science. Considering the amount of time and effort that goes into writing a paper, no one wants to risk retracting a paper or finding a mistake in it that was easily missed.

Also, because publishers have turned the whole process into such a cash cow without adding anything useful to the process, many scientists are trying to bypass them all together. This means that there is more money available to do more science.

[robvalue]

The methodology, and the peer review, were probably fine. It's the implications that some people don't like, and Brown caved to them.

1) You just made that up

2) It could have still been fine but made an error

[I_am_not_mafia]

Why not bold the bit that Brown actually started with?

In light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to Lisa Littman’s study on “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” Brown determined that removing the article from news distribution is the most responsible course of action.

You do realise that it's a news article being retracted, not the actual paper? They took it down because questions were raised over the methodology, and because they have a duty of care to their paying students they didn't want to report something that was now being called into question.

The fact that questions are raised about the methodology of the paper shows that the peer review process works.

[RoadRunner79]

So then, most of the peer review happens outside of and really apart from the publishing process. 

I did not say that in the slightest.

Ok.... but it would seem that a wider audience means that it that it would be reviewed more (the publishers review is just a quick check for publishing)  rather than by only a few peers (often undergrads).  As I said, I think that it is understandable from a standpoint of a journal deciding what it is going to publish.   However it has come under a lot of criticism for allowing some really bad and even fake papers, and denying that which has later earned a nobel prize.   Which is why I prefer to here the arguments, rather than just that it passed (or not) peer review.  I think that people put too much focus on it is all, and it leads scientist to cheapen their work, to get peer review and therefore money.

[Amarok]

As it made it through peer review, the charges on methodology are BS. Or, peer review is BS. Take your pick.

Nope their can be bad peer review studies so this is simply false .

The methodology, and the peer review, were probably fine. It's the implications that some people don't like, and Brown caved to them.

Or it's bad peer review and their right that's also possible 


 Beta Fail a creationist and climate denier lecturing on science is just rich .

[Whateverist]

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2018/08/gender


As it made it through peer review, the charges on methodology are BS. Or, peer review is BS. Take your pick.

I choose false dichotomy for the win.  Peer review can be ineffective in certain cases without indicting the usefulness of peer review in general.  The problem is you are viewing peer review is some sort of guarantor of specific qualities in published research.  It is not.  It is simply a tool that is applied toward the end of establishing scientific truth.  As is post peer review analysis and commentary.  As noted, review of scientific research doesn't end once a paper is published.  There have been papers that have been withdrawn after publication because of fraudulent data or results.  That the original peer review did not catch these cases suggests only that peer review is not 100% effective, but no one is claiming that it is.  And I'll point out that you omitted bolding the part where the Brown letter noted that the concerns about transgender youth and the transgender community were independent of the university's action in the matter, so you seem to be basing your skepticism of the process upon something that was not a part of the process.  This is not to say that the study wasn't pulled for political reasons alone.  It may have been.  Only time and actual examination of the issues will tell.  But that's not what you've presented here.  Regardless, your implied claim that peer review is "BS" if the methodological charges are valid only shows that you have a rather absolutist view of peer review, that it's all or nothing.

Yep, nothing to see here except AM engaging in the same old derpy quote mining of sources which appear at a glance to support his cherished biases. If he is also a Trump supporter you can be sure he gets lots of practice.

[RoadRunner79]

Here are some of the critisism of peer review.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Slow and expensive
Inconsistent
Bias
Abuse of peer review

One if it's suggestions was an openness of the process and ideas.  Which I would agree with.

The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself. Now that I have left I am not sure if this system will be introduced.

[Amarok]

And generally all of them are addressed by good peer review studies. Question is was this a good study?

I also love how Beta is trying to paint it as if no scientist have issues with the study and it's all just a bunch of crazy activists (funny that's what climate deniers are)

[I_am_not_mafia]

Here are some of the critisism of peer review.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

Slow and expensive
Inconsistent
Bias
Abuse of peer review

One if it's suggestions was an openness of the process and ideas.  Which I would agree with.

The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself. Now that I have left I am not sure if this system will be introduced.

From the conclusion:

Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative,

This is the thing about science. It is self correcting. It can even improve the scientific method, which is what is happening here. But if someone has a superior alternative to peer review then please do say. As it is though, no one has come up with a better alternative and until they do peer review will stay.