peer review TED talk

Often "peer review" is merely "peer approval."

click to enlarge

Chris Martz

@ChrisMartzWX

Peer-review is not a part of real science. Period. The peer-review system, as it exists in its current form, has only existed since the 1970s (maybe 1960s in some cases). It is a relatively modern academic gatekeeping process, not an ancient pillar of science. Issac Newton, Galileo, Charles Darwin, and even Einstein's work (specifically, his four Annus Mirabilis papers in 1905) were all written or published without “peer-review.” Science advances with evidence, replication, and falsifiability. “Peer-reviewers” typically do none of the above things when reading over a paper submitted to an academic journal. Reviewers are just anonymous “experts” that stamp approval for any papers they happen to agree with and reject ones that challenge their own biases. But as I have previously said, any of my online critics that demand I publish a paper in a journal can pay me to do it themselves. I am not an academic. I am not a federal employee. I work in the private sector. It is not reasonable to expect me to drop thousands of dollars on a paper to cover paywalled data access fees and a journal's submission and/or publication fee(s). Either put your own money where your mouth is, or shut up about it and drop the stamp-collecting credentialism. I don't need a M.S. or Ph.D. to analyze data or assess claims made by scientists and find errors in them. For hundreds of years, valid science happened outside of peer-reviewed journals because they simply didn't exist, at least in modern form. I also do not believe in using taxpayer dollars to conduct scientific research via NSF grants, etc. Just because something has been “peer-reviewed” does not mean it is accurate. And just because something hasn't been subject to academic circle jerks doesn't mean it isn't valid. Your peers agreeing with your ideas does not make your theory valid. “Peer-review” approval not the arbiter of truth. It's gatekeeping because people are biased, scientists included. Thanks for coming to my ted talk.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/2045974944417280187?s=20

Common Sense Party

@Pater_Richmond

·

30m

How can we know which ‘science’ is being used when viewing ‘papers’ published by so called reliable sources?

The Snarky Nurse

@nrs_ratched

Peer review literally only means that you found enough like-minded individuals to agree with your work. It’s nothing more than a glorification of groupthink, which, ironically, research has shown to be detrimental.

Average nobody

@MrKisukes

·

5h

Peer-reviewed is also not a rigorous as people claim. A lot of times it’s scientists too busy with their own study to do anything more than read the abstract and that will pass as “peer-review.”