• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Has the peer review system become corrupt?

Posted by on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM
  • 24 Replies


Quote: Anonymous

The peer-review system has not only become corrupted in allowing substandard content into the academic market. It has also been turned into a gate-keeping system for imposing ideological conformity.


I'm not going to say where I found this quote, I simply want to debate it's claim. The scientific community depends greatly on peer-reviewed work as a means of verifying truth. But has this system become corrupted?

by on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
JakeandEmmasMom
by Platinum Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:27 PM

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

-Eilish-
by on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:33 PM


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"

glitterteaz
by Ruby Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:41 PM

I would like to see the posters evidence. It sounds like rhetoric you hear spewed from the right who tends to want to hide the truth and push their agenda. From what I had to do in college in order to peer review OMG it was drama and you had to be very ethical and on top of your game cause every expert could and would attack opinion not held strong with facts. So ya I call  bullshit. It is too hard to pass a peer review unless your work is fair and balanced!

timeforprogress
by Silver Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:44 PM
In order to debate this topic, we need to know the details that would lead someone to believe the system is corrupted.

Personally, I think the peer reviewed system is pretty straight forward. It works like this:

A scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes results from said experiment. Other scientist working in the same field read the report, and then they can conduct the experiment and either confirm the results or publish different results. Then other scientist can do the same, until a consenses is reached among the scientific community.

I just don't see corruption, when the peers doing the reviewing live all over the world, and work for a variety of different institutions.


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
JakeandEmmasMom
by Platinum Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 10:48 PM


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"

You misunderstand...I don't mean "why" as in, "why does it matter?"  I mean "why" as in, what evidence does the person have that it is corrupted.  I can't offer an opinion until I hear the evidence.  I know nothing about the peer-review system, so I can't make a guess as to whether or not I might agree or disagree until I hear the evidence.

-Eilish-
by on Sep. 14, 2011 at 11:33 PM

Clearly this is how how a peer-reviewed essay is accomplished, but is it possibile that someone to falsify documents in order to further an agenda.

I'm not really interested in debating the article, which is why I have not posted. What I'm interested in debating is whether or not this corruption may have taken place and how correction may be received, especially if corruption comes from the majority point of view. Is it possible that that the peer-reviewed system is (or could be corrupted)? If so, how? Wouldn't one have to assume that every scientist publishing a peer-reviewed paper has been honest and forthright in all aspects of his/her research? Can that sort of assumption be made about the millions (billions) of scientists out there?

Quoting timeforprogress:

In order to debate this topic, we need to know the details that would lead someone to believe the system is corrupted.

Personally, I think the peer reviewed system is pretty straight forward. It works like this:

A scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes results from said experiment. Other scientist working in the same field read the report, and then they can conduct the experiment and either confirm the results or publish different results. Then other scientist can do the same, until a consenses is reached among the scientific community.

I just don't see corruption, when the peers doing the reviewing live all over the world, and work for a variety of different institutions.


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"


-Eilish-
by on Sep. 14, 2011 at 11:35 PM


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"

You misunderstand...I don't mean "why" as in, "why does it matter?"  I mean "why" as in, what evidence does the person have that it is corrupted.  I can't offer an opinion until I hear the evidence.  I know nothing about the peer-review system, so I can't make a guess as to whether or not I might agree or disagree until I hear the evidence.

Sorry, thanks for the clarification ... while this article points to something specific, I'm trying to stay in general/hypothetical terms. I fear that if the article would detract from the crux of the question. See my above comment for further explanation.

timeforprogress
by Silver Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 11:40 PM
It is through the peer review process that falsification can be found and hoaxes uncovered. The whole point is that experiments can be repeated by different scientist.

Quoting -Eilish-:

Clearly this is how how a peer-reviewed essay is accomplished, but is it possibile that someone to falsify documents in order to further an agenda.

I'm not really interested in debating the article, which is why I have not posted. What I'm interested in debating is whether or not this corruption may have taken place and how correction may be received, especially if corruption comes from the majority point of view. Is it possible that that the peer-reviewed system is (or could be corrupted)? If so, how? Wouldn't one have to assume that every scientist publishing a peer-reviewed paper has been honest and forthright in all aspects of his/her research? Can that sort of assumption be made about the millions (billions) of scientists out there?

Quoting timeforprogress:

In order to debate this topic, we need to know the details that would lead someone to believe the system is corrupted.



Personally, I think the peer reviewed system is pretty straight forward. It works like this:



A scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes results from said experiment. Other scientist working in the same field read the report, and then they can conduct the experiment and either confirm the results or publish different results. Then other scientist can do the same, until a consenses is reached among the scientific community.



I just don't see corruption, when the peers doing the reviewing live all over the world, and work for a variety of different institutions.




Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
glitterteaz
by Ruby Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM

yes a person could falsify an original data but to be peer reviewed the data is put up for review amongst a persons peers. Those peers would then challenge the data and the person who falsified the data looses his credibility so it does not pay to present false data. Peer review prevent false data being presented as fact there for it is credible.

Quoting -Eilish-:

Clearly this is how how a peer-reviewed essay is accomplished, but is it possibile that someone to falsify documents in order to further an agenda.

I'm not really interested in debating the article, which is why I have not posted. What I'm interested in debating is whether or not this corruption may have taken place and how correction may be received, especially if corruption comes from the majority point of view. Is it possible that that the peer-reviewed system is (or could be corrupted)? If so, how? Wouldn't one have to assume that every scientist publishing a peer-reviewed paper has been honest and forthright in all aspects of his/her research? Can that sort of assumption be made about the millions (billions) of scientists out there?

Quoting timeforprogress:

In order to debate this topic, we need to know the details that would lead someone to believe the system is corrupted.

Personally, I think the peer reviewed system is pretty straight forward. It works like this:

A scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes results from said experiment. Other scientist working in the same field read the report, and then they can conduct the experiment and either confirm the results or publish different results. Then other scientist can do the same, until a consenses is reached among the scientific community.

I just don't see corruption, when the peers doing the reviewing live all over the world, and work for a variety of different institutions.


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"



jessilin0113
by Ruby Member on Sep. 14, 2011 at 11:43 PM

The whole point of peer review is to weed that sort of thing out.  I would imagine for corruption to take place, there would have to be a LOT of scientists in league with each other.  A mass conspiracy.  I doubt something like that can exist and not be discovered. 

Quoting -Eilish-:

Clearly this is how how a peer-reviewed essay is accomplished, but is it possibile that someone to falsify documents in order to further an agenda.

I'm not really interested in debating the article, which is why I have not posted. What I'm interested in debating is whether or not this corruption may have taken place and how correction may be received, especially if corruption comes from the majority point of view. Is it possible that that the peer-reviewed system is (or could be corrupted)? If so, how? Wouldn't one have to assume that every scientist publishing a peer-reviewed paper has been honest and forthright in all aspects of his/her research? Can that sort of assumption be made about the millions (billions) of scientists out there?

Quoting timeforprogress:

In order to debate this topic, we need to know the details that would lead someone to believe the system is corrupted.

Personally, I think the peer reviewed system is pretty straight forward. It works like this:

A scientist conducts an experiment and then publishes results from said experiment. Other scientist working in the same field read the report, and then they can conduct the experiment and either confirm the results or publish different results. Then other scientist can do the same, until a consenses is reached among the scientific community.

I just don't see corruption, when the peers doing the reviewing live all over the world, and work for a variety of different institutions.


Quoting -Eilish-:


Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

Based upon what evidence is the claim being made that it is corrupted?  I can't really offer an opinion either way, because I don't know why this person is claiming that it is.

Does there need to be a "why?" If it's corrupted - would there not be evidence, and would that not be a cause for concern regardless of the "why?"



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)