via the tipline
The Green taliban love to declare a study isn;t valid unless it is peer reviewed…they use this to dismiss anyone who publishes anything that doesn’t fit their narrative. A pommy bastard currently residing in Australia emailed me.
You love the Green Taliban’s peer review even less than I do.
Here’s some interesting research which won’t extend that love affair any….
Global warming/Climate change is the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on mankind. It’s a thinly-disguised play to take further control to the centre by people who otherwise would have been (and in many cases still are) card-carrying members of the Communist Party.RegardsTNA (Crispian Cholmondeley-Smythe)P.S. if you post the link, whore www.thenewaustralian.org otherwise I’ll tell Cooky and the boys to humiliate the Black Caps.
P.P.S. Damn, bad timing.
The link he refers to is this one on a study on the relevance of the peer review process.
A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy and fairness of modern peer-review practices in publication and funding are apparent across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Although questions about reliability, accountability, reviewer bias, and competence have been raised, there has been very little direct research on these variables.
The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.