Skip to main content

View Diary: Richwine Scandal Recalls Hitler's Ivy League Connections (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have done pre-publication peer review (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, OleHippieChick

    Much of it is a sham. Reviewers in many fields are not expected to opine on the correctness of the reported research or analysis. They are supposed to help it to come up to the standards of comparable research, like citing other relevant research and being adequately written. There are honorable exceptions.

    In the case of respected economics journals, peer review often means only that papers have to present respectable-looking Voodoo, like Baron Samedi in his fine suit and top hat.

    True peer review is done by those who attempt to replicate research, or re-analyze the original dataset, as happened to Reinhardt and Rogoff. Or the Cold Fusion of Fleischman and Ponds.

    Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

    by Mokurai on Sat May 11, 2013 at 02:20:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  This may be true, but doesn't excuse R&R (0+ / 0-)

      for not even going through the motions. And now that we've seen the man behind the curtain, Harvard has a responsibility to do something other than wink at their behavior.

      But thanks for the inside dope on the process of peer review and how it's not always the safeguard it seems to be.

      "When people spin this in partisan terms to obfuscate the truth, it does a real disservice to normal people not in the big club in DC. Many of them will be hurting...That is why I write."--priceman

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon May 13, 2013 at 08:06:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site