If I remember correctly, I did. You'll have to go back and find the post though.
Obviously you have never been anywhere near a peer review process. My ex-wife's publications most certainly got "accepted" and "declined" and often with short quips offered as reasons. You do have an idealistic and uninformed world view.
And I did offer feedback. Don't use Wikipedia, and no, it is never appropriate. EVER. I'd like you to link us to one peer-reviewed publication in the climate sciences where a Wikipedia article was cited. Just one.
No serious research institution allows Wikipedia as a reference, not even for undergraduate papers.
If your work is thoroughly documented and indexed, in a presentable form for peer-review, points which come into question should be easily accessible, with a minimum delay.....
So has your wife submitted her work for peer review? Or is she just trying to get something published. Two different things. Guess you're pretty idealistic and uninformed too.
I reapeat for the hard of reading, if you have feedback on my data, quantities or methods, then I'd love to hear them. I never claimed I'm a serious research instution or undergraduate, I only said when someone found errors, that's a simple example of peer review.
Administration, Nigel, and Brian1 will be along with the ban hammers shortly. We all will see who's standing tomorrow. Odds are this thread gets locked and likely deleted soon anyway.
Huh? No, my ex wife. She is a psychologist and indeed she has submitted research papers on gibbons (a kind of monkey) for peer review AND publication. If it doesn't pass peer review, it will not be published. Not in any kind of reputable periodical anyway.
She is also a statistician so I learned a lot from her about fudging data to get significant results.
Man, you just don't get it. I've been screwing with you all day to try and get you to see a point but you will never get it. Don't preach to people about peer review and its glories when you don't even know how to submit material properly yourself. It was you who wanted to "play pretend" and speak as if we were peers doing peer-review on a scientific submission. So I have been going along EXACTLY as a referee on a review committee would. Yet YOU keep demanding that I (the pretend referee) show proof. That isn't how it works. I know firsthand, I've seen with my ex-wife how political and trite the peer review concept is. In theory it is great, but in practice not so much. Yes, something as small as a poor citation will get a paper handed back to you and if the reviewer wants to be a real jerk he can make sure it never sees the light of day again.
There is a huge and expansive void where plenty of good research has been dumped into the ether because of peer-review.
I agree. What's your point?
Sorry, you'll just have to look for it.
The CO2 emission being the core, Edit: Greenhouse gasesand the key to the 'crisis' is mainly what I take issue with.
What make you think that you are the referee and not simply one of the "peers" in this discussion?wanted to "play pretend" and speak as if we were peers doing peer-review on a scientific submission. So I have been going along EXACTLY as a referee on a review committee would. Yet YOU keep demanding that I (the pretend referee) show proof.
What make you think that you are the referee and not simply one of the "peers" in this discussion?
The critique provided by a peer review often suggests ways to clarify assumptions, findings, and conclusions. For instance, peer reviews can filter out biases and identify oversights, omissions, and inconsistencies.3 Peer review also may encourage authors to more fully acknowledge limitations and uncertainties. In some cases, reviewers might recommend major changes to the draft, such as refinement of hypotheses, reconsideration of research design, modifications of data collection or analysis methods, or alternative conclusions. However, peer review does not always lead to specific modifications in the draft product. In some cases, a draft is in excellent shape prior to being submitted for review. In others, the authors do not concur with changes suggested by one or more reviewers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?