It is evidence that:
- "peer reviewed" means much less than is commonly assumed
- the word "consensus" is much more firmly linked to politics than science
Not too many of these guys are scientists. Why do they want them to review scientific papers?
Murmurings of low reproducibility began in 2011 – the "year of horrors" for psychology – with a high profile fraud case. But since then, The Open Science Collaboration has published the findings of a large-scale effort to closely replicate 100 studies in psychology. Only 36% of them could be replicated.
Nature asked 1,576 scientists for their thoughts on reproducibility. Most agree that there's a 'crisis' and over 70% said they'd tried and failed to reproduce another group's experiments.
CONCLUSION
So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.
[video=youtube;emBY6phmn9E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emBY6phmn9E[/video]
Dang, first the windmills, now solar plants. Why do environmentalists hate birds so much?? (Well, presumably except for the spotted owl)
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/21/california-carbon-auction-800-million/ California raises more than 800 million in carbon auction.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/21/california-carbon-auction-800-million/ California raises more than 800 million in carbon auction.
Oh, yeah, no way that ends badly.
Oh, yeah, no way that ends badly.