Taught by fifty years of observation, we know that many members of the XYZ community use innuendo to cope with independent analysts: "But some of their methods are not the methods we use," or "Their work is not peer-reviewed.
Such complaints are meant to suggest that the independent methods and results are wrong. But it is not good enough for critics to cast aspersions over a whole analysis unless they are prepared to debate its substance on a scientific level.
When independent analysts take an independent look at a problem, they well may use independent methods. A presumption that independent methods are inferior to the conventional approach would be an unwarranted bias. After all, independent methods may be more appropriate and superior to conventional approaches, especially if conventional approaches were chosen in order to miss or obscure an unwelcome reality.
With regard to peer-review, the peer-review system itself is under serious criticism for inattention to scientific standards
In any case, XYZ committees can and do self-publish their own work without any control or veto-power from independent peers. Likewise, independent peers may publish their work in channels located beyond the veto-power of the XYZ community.
Whether a report is by an XYZ committee or by an independent analyst, what will count in the end -- with regard to human health -- is the work's scientific content. The rest is noise.
You might be very interested in two peer reviews on this very subject...
Rennie, Drummond, November 7, 1986. "Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 256, No.17: 2391-2392.
Rennie, Drummond + Elizabeth Knoll, August 1, 1988. "Investigating Peer Review," ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 109, No.3: 181.
Such complaints are meant to suggest that the independent methods and results are wrong. But it is not good enough for critics to cast aspersions over a whole analysis unless they are prepared to debate its substance on a scientific level.
When independent analysts take an independent look at a problem, they well may use independent methods. A presumption that independent methods are inferior to the conventional approach would be an unwarranted bias. After all, independent methods may be more appropriate and superior to conventional approaches, especially if conventional approaches were chosen in order to miss or obscure an unwelcome reality.
With regard to peer-review, the peer-review system itself is under serious criticism for inattention to scientific standards
In any case, XYZ committees can and do self-publish their own work without any control or veto-power from independent peers. Likewise, independent peers may publish their work in channels located beyond the veto-power of the XYZ community.
Whether a report is by an XYZ committee or by an independent analyst, what will count in the end -- with regard to human health -- is the work's scientific content. The rest is noise.
You might be very interested in two peer reviews on this very subject...
Rennie, Drummond, November 7, 1986. "Guarding the Guardians: A Conference on Editorial Peer Review," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 256, No.17: 2391-2392.
Rennie, Drummond + Elizabeth Knoll, August 1, 1988. "Investigating Peer Review," ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE 109, No.3: 181.
Upvote
0
