Ivermectin: balance of evidence shows no benefit against Covid-19

[Lucas Buck]

And here is the major misconception. People keep holding on to peer review as if it's this golden standard of correctness when passing or not passing peer review does not allude to that at all. Journals mostly use peer review to decide if something meets the standard for publication and not as a matter of correctness or trustworthiness.

You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than none at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that the goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).

 

[AfricanTech]

 

[Swa]

You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than non at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that there goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).

You make several assumptions that often don't pan out. People in a field can be so invested in a particular paradigm that they miss anything that contradicts that. But that is not the point. Articles get published based on whether or not they meet a set of criteria set out by the journal. That criteria does not say that something is correct or not. I'm not saying that it's about simple mistakes but it's also not that it's a testament to something's correctness.

 

[Geoff.D]

but it's also not that it's a testament to something's correctness.

Or, that what was valid yesterday is still valid/not valid today. New information and insights arise and are developed all the time.

The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and errors of logic on the part of researchers.

It is NOT about well the obvious stuff mentioned. That is the job of the proofreaders and editors, And based on the number of errors we see all the time on pre-print servers, it appears that no one is doing that anymore ---- I have the feeling that there is an assumption the peer-reviewers are supposed to do those tasks, while the peer-reviewers quite rightly are assuming proofreaders and editors are doing it. The glaring mistakes we see all the time are just too numerous in most articles posted on the pre-print servers.

Even the latest Pfizer vaccine document has some terrible examples.

 

[JohnStarr]

Have you or do you work in a research environment?

Have you?

 

[buka001]

So do you or have you worked in a research organisation? Simple yes or no required .

Have you?

 

[buka001]

Or, that what was valid yesterday is still valid today. New information and insights arise and are developed all the time.

The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers.

It is NOT about well the obvious stuff mentioned. That is the job of the proofreaders and editors, And based on the number of errors we see all the time on pre-print servers, it appears that no one is doing that anymore ---- I have the feeling that there is an assumption the peer-reviewers are supposed to do those tasks, while the peer-reviewers quite rightly are assuming proofreaders and editors are doing it. The glaring mistakes we see all the time are just too numerous in most articles posted on the pre-print servers.

Even the latest Pfizer vaccine document has some terrible examples.

In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

People died of acute radiation sickness.

So is it still valid today?

 

[Geoff.D]

Have you?

Yes actually.

 

[Swa]

In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

Not much has changed...

 

[Geoff.D]

In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

People died of acute radiation sickness.

So is it still valid today?

What has that to with a debate on the peer-review process?

Or maybe you want to offer some of your insights into this seeing we are on a path to derail all discussions?

Syphilis emerged in Western Europe in 1494-1495. The origin of the disease is still debated, but the most prevalent theory suggests that it was brought from the Americas by the returning crew of Christopher Columbus. Early treatments included botanicals, particularly guaiacum, a tree discovered in the New World. Mercury was in use by the early 16th century, and remained the primary treatment for syphilis until the early 20th century. Syphilis led to stigmatizing disfigurations that were treated with surgery, including pioneering attempts in rhinoplasty.

 

[Howdy]

You make it seem as if they're simply looking at layout and spelling en grenma. If you're getting experts in the field to conduct the peer review, they would be able to read, understand, evaluate and critique the research conducted better than the layman.
I'm not an expert on medical research but I'd think that it's better to work towards some kind of standard than non at all.

That's not to say that there won't be peer reviewed articles that get published that later get retracted for whatever reason. Or research that gets frowned upon now that is verified later. The system isn't perfect but it's the best possible way to make sure that journals who have built a good reputation remain so by limiting the possibility of bad research papers being published. This also helps other researchers in their own research knowing that the goto resources in their field are reputable(this obviously shouldn't stop them from crtiically evaluating articles they reference as part of their research).

Valid comments. I also highlight a certain portion.

Consider an environment where X amount is available for research. We have two competing groups. Obviously group A and B could compete honorably, or not. Let's take this a step further. What if group A has a "secret weapon", knows how to use/abuse other tools. Or that this knowledge was abused previously? Or the actual environment or tools are contaminated?

People like Katherine Stovel and others are doing some interesting work in this field.

https://soc.washington.edu/research/projects-and-grants/echo-chambers-science-impact-academic-recommender-systems-disseminatio

Echo Chambers in Science? The Impact of Academic Recommender Systems on the Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge

The Influence of Changing Marginals on Measures of Inequality in Scholarly Citations: Evidence of Bias and a Resampling Correction | Sociological Science

Lanu Kim, Christopher Adolph, Jevin D. West, Katherine Stovel Sociological Science August 10, 2020 10.15195/v7.a13 Abstract Scholars have debated whether changes in digital environments have led to greater concentration or dispersal of scientific citations, but this debate has paid little...

sociologicalscience.com

The Influence of Changing Marginals on Measures of Inequality in Scholarly Citations: Evidence of Bias and a Resampling Correction

Something to chew on.

 

[buka001]

Yes actually.

In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate logic? How does it eliminate logic?

 

[buka001]

What has that to with a debate on the peer-review process?

A lot actually.

If you understand how peer reviews and the scientific method evolved in the 20th century.

 

[Howdy]

In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate logic? How does it eliminate logic?

Error of logic. As per your post

You're welcome.

 

[JangoFett]

In the early 1900's it was valid to medicate with Radon.

People died of acute radiation sickness.

So is it still valid today?

Troll.

 

[JangoFett]

In what specific field of research? What type of institution or organisation was it(you don't have to specify the name, just the type and field)?

Because how do you state this - "The peer-review process was designed to eliminate errors of thinking and logic on the part of researchers."

Eliminate errors of logic? How does it eliminate errors of logic?

FTFY, troll.

 

[pouroverguy]

Troll.

You've been posting troll like remarks repeatedly. How does "Troll" advance the conversation?

 

[buka001]

Error of logic. As per your post

You're welcome.

Is that what he said?

 

[JangoFett]

You've been posting troll like remarks repeatedly. How does "Troll" advance the conversation?

Points out the disruptive posters so that others will know not to engage with them, duh.

Can you explain to me what it is you like about posts where posters intentionally misunderstand the posts they're responding to for the purposes of disrupting constructive conversations?

 

[JangoFett]

Is that what he said?

Yes.