Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, but I figured the nice aitch was a word you'd be prepared to use. While the nasty aitch, maybe you wouldn't. Was I wrong?Um ... there's another aitch too, you know.
The only claim I have seen for that is specific to medical journals, not the physical sciences. And granted, there have been a number of new journals recently coming into existence that are not the peer review status that they claim, but most of them have been rooted out for their bogus claims and no respectable scientist would even submit a paper to them. When it comes to the mainstream physical science journals, they are rock solid with their peer review.Actually, it's not funny. It's quite sad. Peer review is losing it's "validity". So is science.
I like to think he's in Heaven.Yeah, but I figured the nice aitch was a word you'd be prepared to use. While the nasty aitch, maybe you wouldn't. Was I wrong?
If there's a heaven, I have no doubt he's there. Probably hassling God to tell him more details about creation!I like to think he's in Heaven.
Even if there were such a thing as 'evolutionists', they would not have a prophet.Which is giving him more credit than evolutionists give their prophet credit à la the Lady Hope story.
Thank you for your contribution to the topic of the thread AV. I think probably the important thing to understand with peer review is that the submitted article/research is reviewed by experts in the field to which the article applies. For example, a person submitting an article about a new dating radiometric dating technique, or an improvement of a specific method would be reviewed by geochronologists, who specialize in that area, not just a geologist or any scientist.Here is the criteria for getting an article peer reviewed:
What Is Peer Review?
In academic publishing, the goal of peer review is to assess the quality of articles submitted for publication in a scholarly journal. Before an article is deemed appropriate to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, it must undergo the following process:
- The author of the article must submit it to the journal editor who forwards the article to experts in the field. Because the reviewers specialize in the same scholarly area as the author, they are considered the author’s peers (hence “peer review”).
- These impartial reviewers are charged with carefully evaluating the quality of the submitted manuscript.
- The peer reviewers check the manuscript for accuracy and assess the validity of the research methodology and procedures.
· Because a peer-reviewed journal will not publish articles that fail to meet the standards established for a given discipline, peer-reviewed articles that are accepted for publication exemplify the best research practices in a field.
- If appropriate, they suggest revisions. If they find the article lacking in scholarly validity and rigor, they reject it.
SOURCE
I'm pretty sure a creation science article wouldn't get past the second step.
Amen! Can I get a witness?Even if there were such a thing as 'evolutionists', they would not have a prophet.
Says who?Indeed, the term 'evolutionists', is an unfounded derogatory term.
Wikipedia said:In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism."
Not at all, as I'm not a cdesign proponentsist, and as such, I'm free to except the evidence as it is, without having to retrofit it to fit a narrative for reasons of vanity.Sorry, can't help myself, Paul, you really don't see how ridiculous that sounds?
Hitch, is that to say you really buy that nonsense?
No matter, I find that science is out to prove itself rather than look for the real truth. This all started when mankind wrote in stone their idea of truth. Now, anything that contradicts it is ridiculed and anything at all that can be bent to prove the hoax of evolution is held at the top of the list and shouted from the rooftops as solid truth.The only claim I have seen for that is specific to medical journals, not the physical sciences. And granted, there have been a number of new journals recently coming into existence that are not the peer review status that they claim, but most of them have been rooted out for their bogus claims and no respectable scientist would even submit a paper to them. When it comes to the mainstream physical science journals, they are rock solid with their peer review.
Thank you for your non-professional, uninformed opinion of "Peer Review" of the physical sciences, which I know to be, personally and from my colleagues, incorrect and pure rubbish. Might I suggest criticizing something from which you have a background and experience with rather than that from which you have neither.Peer review has lost it's punch, lost it's validity, lost it's integrity.
No matter, I find that science is out to prove itself rather than look for the real truth. This all started when mankind wrote in stone their idea of truth. Now, anything that contradicts it is ridiculed and anything at all that can be bent to prove the hoax of evolution is held at the top of the list and shouted from the rooftops as solid truth.
No matter, I find that science is out to prove itself rather than look for the real truth. This all started when mankind wrote in stone their idea of truth. Now, anything that contradicts it is ridiculed and anything at all that can be bent to prove the hoax of evolution is held at the top of the list and shouted from the rooftops as solid truth.
Peer review has lost it's punch, lost it's validity, lost it's integrity.
Really? Rubbish? I am not alone in this opinion. I know you rely on the support of the hive mind and the "boys club" attitude of "nonsense" to any science that goes against the "gold standard" of the hoax of the TOE.Thank you for your non-professional, uninformed opinion of "Peer Review" of the physical sciences, which I know to be, personally and from my colleagues, incorrect and pure rubbish. Might I suggest criticizing something from which you have a background and experience with rather than that from which you have neither.
Really? Rubbish? I am not alone in this opinion. I know you rely on the support of the hive mind and the "boys club" attitude of "nonsense" to any science that goes against the "gold standard" of the hoax of the TOE.
But, many are taking notice to the lack of integrity and "majority rules, truth drool's" in the coveted peer review. . . . .
Now, Kenny!
Don't you know they're entitled to their opinion, just as we're entitled to their opinion?
It's when we don't give in and agree with them that the spirit of persecution is awakened.
Big bang theory is a scientific theory. That's just a fact.
I'm informing you that you are incorrect by implying that it is not.
Says who?
Really? Rubbish? I am not alone in this opinion. I know you rely on the support of the hive mind and the "boys club" attitude of "nonsense" to any science that goes against the "gold standard" of the hoax of the TOE.
But, many are taking notice to the lack of integrity and "majority rules, truth drool's" in the coveted peer review.
Peer review has become no more than the preverbial slap on the back as you all stand around drinking old scotch bragging about your accomplishments all the while hoping the wife doesn't call to tell you to come back home to reality.
Check these links.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
Also: This guy goes into detail on the points below the link.
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
Three myths about scientific peer review
Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review
Myth number 2: peer review is reliable
Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science
.......this person actually thinks assuming something expanded somewhere . . .
And it is just that, an uninformed opinion from one with no experience on the outside looking in. Might I suggest reviewing the OP of this thread and getting back on topic.Really? Rubbish? I am not alone in this opinion.
I did, did you notice that every single reference provided by the author of that paper was from a Medical Journal and nothing from the physical sciences. We are discussing physical science here, not medical research, which I agree has a serious problem with reliable results. And I don't mean by unreliable people, but just the nature of that type of research which has enormous variables that must be dealt with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?