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 ]