Posted: Aug 22, 2017 6:11 pm
Wortfish wrote:I think you have a naive and idealistic view of the peer review process. It works in some cases, where the reviewers have the time to reproduce the findings, but more often than not bad papers - even fraudulent ones - get published:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... bly-wrong/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/how ... rent-true/
https://theconversation.com/scientific- ... ppen-13948
A more useful criterion is whether the findings are validated in further research and the paper is cited accordingly. Unless this happens, scientific papers should only be regarded as tenatatively pointing to a possible conclusion that may be overturned.
Which is how the creationists do it. You think?