I mean, who trust a scientist that is being paid and funding by the CCP? Blood money!
Scientist, Journals, the lot.
Can you summarize your best understanding of how peer-review works?
Jesus, you're a moron. Probably brain washed by the leftist media.
I guess I will S-P-E-L-L it out for you child. Old fucking news.
The two highest-ranking international medical journals, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet, retracted yesterday simultaneously two papers on COVID-19. The reason is obvious fraud committed by the coauthor Sapan Desai, Chicago-based surgeon and businessman, whose analytics company Surgisphere claimed to have stored clinical data from thousands of patients of hundreds of hospitals all over the world. Which was apparently all a big fake.
This fraud case is being presently discussed in all the international news, literally every media is onto Desai’s shady past and the details of his Surgisphere fraud, some even figured out it might have been wrong to slam preprints as dangerous poison, while it is the peer reviewed papers in the two most highly ranking medical journals in the world which served us the biggest fraud and caused the biggest damage.
Does the leftist media talk a lot about peer-review?
Who has figured out that "it might have been wrong to slam preprints as dangerous poison"? The scientific community? Preprints are papers that are not peer reviewed (e.g., they can be posted on arxiv if you want to expedite sharing of information with the broader scientific community without having to wait). There's nothing wrong with them except that you need to be careful in reading them, and you need the relevant expertise to judge the validity of those papers. Peer-reviewed papers, you can trust them somewhat more because at least the crazy absolute crackpot papers have been weeded out. Nobody regards peer reviewed papers as some sort of excerpts from a gospel.
Research ideas are tried and tested and they naturally evolve. Science attempts to make the best tentative statements about any given topic based on the models and the the data that we have access to. The data we have access to naturally evolves, and thus so does science. Science doesn't make declarations of truth. Once a research idea sticks for long enough, you can have more confidence in it, as it has survival all the trials science threw at it.
idiots think peer review is the end all. when it has been shown to be politically biased partisan behavior.
I asked you to summarize how peer review works. I did not claim that peer-review is perfect.
In fact, you are disproving your own point by taking part in the peer-review process yourself. You criticize scientific papers, point out flaws, and make your own conclusions.
Are you, yourself, not conducting peer-review, in a sense? Now, say that you were wrong about some scientific paper, does that mean that you are wrong, always? By extension, does it mean that everyone who makes conclusions about any scientific papers are always wrong? And if not always, what fraction of the time would you say they're wrong? You are applying similar arguments to claim that a scientific paper which was peer-reviewed and sanity checked by experts and then found to be wrong invalidates the entire peer-review process. How does that make sense?
The only difference between your peer-review vs the scientific peer-review is that you don't have relevant expertise, and they do.
What fraction of un-peer-reviewed papers, on average, do you reckon are correct, vs peer-reviewed papers?
Oh look at me, my peers approve, So cool!
They do not just write "I approve" or "I disapprove" in referee reports.
