[wattsupwiththat.com]
Global warming alarmists suffered a big hit this week in their effort to deify shoddy “peer-reviewed” climate papers.
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
1 comment
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Early-on JPeterson spoke extensively about journal review and its use in his field. He made the point that there are (at least) two reasons to publish: 1) recognition (publish or perish phenom) and 2)advancement of science.
The latter was his main point. Science depends upon sharing data/results, and then building on that. If dude A says "xxx alnohehoh..yada yada" and you think that was correct; you will reference his work and build upon it. Being referenced, cited, is a mark of how useful your work is. If not referenced at all it was either: 1) a dead end, no one will follow up or build upon it, 2) totally wrong and it is best to not have anyone cite it at all, or 3) of no note -- might as well write about how wet water is.
He noted that of the thousands of publications in the areas of gender studies/etc, there are almost no citations. Mebbe a handful.
Whole fields of study are worthless.
bobbo666
Level 8
Jan 11, 2024
1
if the intent is to miss represent the study it very easy to write a peer review. if it to advance science yes the data must be repeated over and over to confirm the results.
@1patriot Oh, it is not just confirmation, repeating to see if the study was right. JP was also trying to say that if a publication garners no citation, it means that the work was not worth building upon a'tall. It was a "nothing burger" in its entirety.
In other words, if no one across the entire world cites your work at all that means it was a total waste of time and money. And, since that expense closed out other (presumably more worthy) work, then science was, in fact, pushed backwards by your effort. YOU contributed negative scientific progress.
And, of the thousands of progressive publications, <0.0001% are cited. It is that bad.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.