I’m a complete non academic nobody without a college degree. I can barely spell

words without the use of spell check. I how ever was under the impression that in

most cases, possibly always in the scientific realm of published papers or more

appropriately scholarly publications. A peer reviewed paper is looked upon with far

more credibility and credence than a non peer reviewed paper ?

Yet I do realize that the peer review process does not reach conclusions about the

validity of findings in any scholarly publications.



So however I do understand your point.



I’ve been trying to reach my own conclusions about the importance and

effectiveness of peer reviewed scholarly publications. While I understand the

process is not a know all end all to reaching correct conclusions and publishing

those conclusions in scientific journals. I do believe the scientific work submitted

for review is forced to meet a higher level of quality then papers not submitted.

This in return protects the standards of the publishing journals.



The most important part of any scientific or scholarly work is to in fact reach a set

of conclusions that are undeniably factual and have a predictable reproducible

outcome.



So the benefit of the peer review process allows for higher quality scholarly

publications. In return these published results provide for any other scientist to

duplicate or refute these results. There by continuing the scientific process to reach

predictable, reproducible results.









Thanks for reading my point of view





. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz





I Support USark.org

[ Show Entire Thread ]