10-04-2021, 01:02 PM
(10-04-2021, 12:46 PM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: In terms of peer review--i think you have the wrong impression. PR doesn't mean unbiased, nor does it mean a paper was checked for factual basis or accuracy upon review. It's not entirely meant to be trusted.
One of the reasons peer review is valuable is precisely because bias can be present in a study.
Peer review can, but doesn't always mean, the paper was checked for factual basis an accuracy. You can read the reviews and find out what the reviewers were looking for.
And the peer review process is precisely because no single paper and no single review should be entirely trusted. The reviews aren't even automatically trusted. The author gets to respond to her reviewers and may very well be able to show that the reviewer was off.
In peer review, when it's done correctly, everything is on the table for the entire profession to see, along with any non-experts that are interested. With humans involved, it's a good process we have for vetting our hypotheses.