Peer review. That's it. That's what we'll be doing when we drive to the
beaches to check out those women. Peer review.
Chuck Anderson
'86 GL (only for a short time now)

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
Of Joy Hecht
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:07 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: It's Fryeday in Europe, yes? was Global Warming My Vanagon?

Peer review is like democracy, a lousy system except that it's better
than
all the others.

Joy

:::-----Original Message-----
:::From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On
Behalf
:::Of Mike S
:::Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:32 PM
:::To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
:::Subject: Re: Global Warming My Vanagon?
:::
:::At 06:56 PM 3/15/2007, Jim Kurpius wrote...
:::>I can't take this list spreading 12 year old non-peer reviewed
papers
:::>from a Hoover institution economist.
:::
:::Who peer reviewed the John Muir books?
:::
:::Not that peer review does anything other than add a false impression
of
:::correctness to articles. Interestingly, and perhaps ironically, the
:::only peer reviewed study of peer review seems to be Cicchetti, which
:::finds the process to be flawed.
:::
:::"In his comparative review of peer-review studies conducted over the
:::past 20 years by various researchers, Cicchetti finds consistently
low
:::agreement among referees about the quality of manuscript submissions
:::and grant proposals" - Science News
:::http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...139/ai_10965279
:::
:::"even the system's most ardent supporters acknowledge that peer
review
:::does not eliminate mediocre and inferior papers and has never passed
:::the very test for which it is used." - NY Times
:::http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/0...nyt&emc=rss
:::
:::"In one 1998 experiment designed to test what peer review uncovers,
:::researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research
:::paper. More than 200 reviewers identified an average of only two
:::errors." - The Scientist http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/
:::
:::"Today, its lead author Woo Suk Hwang stands accused of one of the
:::boldest scientific frauds in memory... Could Science have detected
the
:::fraud? Science's editors and many stem cell researchers believe not:
:::The 2005 paper was positively received by its peer reviewers," -
:::Science http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5757/23