It devolves into scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll peer review your stuff, could you peer review mine?
Also peer reviewed...yes, and what were the results of the peer review? Critical criticism or a big thumbs up? That never seems to go along with peoples claim of credibility due to something being "peer reviewed".
Someone recently made a good point about peer reviews that most of the quality people in many professions are busy doing work so you get a lower tier of people/scientists that take the time to peer review papers. Peer reviewed today likely just means some intern in the industry took a look at a paper.
Most of the dipshits that say it have no idea what it means. The entire peer review process is corrupted too.
Like a circlejerk of yes men...
That's because at one time it did mean something.
Yeah, it means as much as “New York Times bestseller”
It never did. Bribes and pay offs since day one.
These are the same people that think a HS drop out ‘tard is a climate expert 🤷♂️
Or a medical expert?
It devolves into scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'll peer review your stuff, could you peer review mine?
Also peer reviewed...yes, and what were the results of the peer review? Critical criticism or a big thumbs up? That never seems to go along with peoples claim of credibility due to something being "peer reviewed".
Someone recently made a good point about peer reviews that most of the quality people in many professions are busy doing work so you get a lower tier of people/scientists that take the time to peer review papers. Peer reviewed today likely just means some intern in the industry took a look at a paper.
Ideally, it does. It is a supposed to offer an opportunity for your peers to criticize your process or use your process to verify your conclusion.
In practice, however, it's extremely incestuous and it ends up just being "sound good? Good, approve".