Does rice milk or milk from grain-fed cows emit less methane?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Thou we must acknowledge peer review has been a very powerful tool in rooting out fakery and fraud. It may be a modern idea but i will argue it's essential for modern science.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Who peer reviewed Anaximander? Archimedes? Euclid? Who reviewed the work of the nameless genius who invented the bow and arrow?

Your point is wrong. Flat wrong.

Boru

Seriously, dude? You think Euclid worked alone? You think Euclid did not ask other mathematicians (most of which are presumably unknown today) what they think about his work before publishing it? You think that scientists in ancient times were acting like cranks today, bombarding ignorant people with controversial statetements they don't know how to evaluate?

Yes, I think Euclid worked alone - there is no evidence indicating otherwise. As has been explained to you, talking to people about your work isn’t the same as peer review.

In fact, until the mid-17th century (and, to a lesser extent, after), scientific works were evaluated after publication, not before. Please understand - I am NOT denying the value of peer review. When properly conducted, it is vital to the dissemination of scientific information. But science as science would chug along just fine without it.

Your other question is too stupid to bother with.

Boru

[FlatAssembler]

Peer review is not the same as communication. Peer review means you don't get to share your ideas before your peers have determined that it is likely free from mistakes, and is providing something new. It is largely about the cost of disseminating information, and the reputation of the journal doing the publication.

Science works perfectly fine by validation or falsification by others after publication. It doesn't require a pre-publication gatekeeper.

That's not true at all. Most of the published research is wrong. Passing peer-review means only the paper is not obviously wrong. And my previous paper published in Regionalne Studije contained basically nothing new, the only thing new there was the (basically irrelevant to the topic) speculation that PIE *danu (river) and PAN *danau (lake) were related.

[FlatAssembler]

I think Valpovački Godišnjak is not reviewed by any linguist, and I am quite sure it's not reviewed by any informatician (or else they would know better than formatting my JavaScript code in Times New Roman and removing all identation). The reviewers there are historians. They are not at all qualified to say that my paper about applying informatics to the toponyms is likely to be right. Regionalne Studije is reviewed by some linguists, but they are dialectologists. They are probably less familiar with the mainstream interpretation of the Croatian toponyms than I am, so they have little to say about whether my previous paper published in Regionalne Studije or my latest paper about applying informatics to the names of places are right. But the fact that two PhD informaticians, as well as quite a few people who know something about informatics, reviewed my paper about applying informatics to the names of places before I published it, and none of them found a critical error, does indeed suggest that my paper might be right. That's what "peer review" means. And that's how it has always been done.

[HappySkeptic]

Peer review is not the same as communication.  Peer review means you don't get to share your ideas before your peers have determined that it is likely free from mistakes, and is providing something new.  It is largely about the cost of disseminating information, and the reputation of the journal doing the publication.

Science works perfectly fine by validation or falsification by others after publication.  It doesn't require a pre-publication gatekeeper.

That's not true at all. Most of the published research is wrong. Passing peer-review means only the paper is not obviously wrong. And my previous paper published in Regionalne Studije contained basically nothing new, the only thing new there was the (basically irrelevant to the topic) speculation that PIE *danu (river) and PAN *danau (lake) were related.

Well, then, obviously science can happen without pre-publication peer review, as it is sometimes just a rubber stamp anyway.  That is our point.

I've reviewed many papers.  I had no way of knowing whether the research was faulty.  All I could judge is whether the work seems worthy of publication.  Is it not obviously wrong, is it disseminating new information, and is it written in the form of a scientific paper? 

I also checked that it is not jus  a rehash of previous work (which is very common.  You do 1 piece of work, and get a conference proceeding, a letter article, a full article, and a follow-up article.  Sometimes it is justified.  Many times it isn't).

[FlatAssembler]

Seriously, dude? You think Euclid worked alone? You think Euclid did not ask other mathematicians (most of which are presumably unknown today) what they think about his work before publishing it? You think that scientists in ancient times were acting like cranks today, bombarding ignorant people with controversial statetements they don't know how to evaluate?

Yes, I think Euclid worked alone - there is no evidence indicating otherwise. As has been explained to you, talking to people about your work isn’t the same as peer review.

In fact, until the mid-17th century (and, to a lesser extent, after), scientific works were evaluated after publication, not before. Please understand - I am NOT denying the value of peer review. When properly conducted, it is vital to the dissemination of scientific information. But science as science would chug along just fine without it.

Your other question is too stupid to bother with.

Boru

Then how was his work basically free of errors? It seems so unlikely somebody would be able to write 17 books full of original proofs without somebody reviewing it, without any significant errors. The only famous error was speculation that the Euclid's 5th Postulate can be proven using the first four.

Scientific works are nearly always also evaluated after publication, not only before. Most of the published research is wrong. Peer-review is there to eliminate obvious errors.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yes, I think Euclid worked alone - there is no evidence indicating otherwise. As has been explained to you, talking to people about your work isn’t the same as peer review.

In fact, until the mid-17th century (and, to a lesser extent, after), scientific works were evaluated after publication, not before. Please understand - I am NOT denying the value of peer review. When properly conducted, it is vital to the dissemination of scientific information. But science as science would chug along just fine without it.

Your other question is too stupid to bother with.

Boru

Then how was his work basically free of errors? It seems so unlikely somebody would be able to write 17 books full of original proofs without somebody reviewing it, without any significant errors. The only famous error was speculation that the Euclid's 5th Postulate can be proven using the first four.

Scientific works are nearly always also evaluated after publication, not only before. Most of the published research is wrong. Peer-review is there to eliminate obvious errors.

His work was largely free of errors because he was a fucking genius. He really had no contemporaries fit to pass judgement on his work.

The science is evaluated post-publication, the scientific work, in the form of a published paper, is evaluated during the peer review process.

If most peer reviewed research is wrong, why do you keep harping on your own published papers (especially since you’ve said that the reviewer were not experts in the relevant fields)? If I was seeking to publish a paper on metallurgy, I certainly wouldn’t submit it to a journal with no metallurgists on the review board.

Boru