This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scholarly peer review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the following section to here, because before reinsertion I think it needs clarification regarding what an "invited paper" is in this sense, and what component of the process (simply absence of peer review?) makes it more "valuable". Mikael Häggström ( talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the 10K addition of Result-blind peer review, Gwern. I find numerous issues with it unfortunately.
I think that these types of peer review should be added more carefully and critically, with time context and why some journals never went beyond piloting.
I have flagged basically ALL refs, which may be unstable / linkrot susceptible without complete citation and without archiving.
Adding inline external links is a no-no on WP.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
[1] not sure where to add summary... 212.200.65.108 ( talk) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged two sources as potentially unreliable. Fringe proponents do complain about peer review but the process effectively prevents them from corrupting science, making their claims akin to conspiracy theories. It is legitimate for mainstream journals to reject disproven claims of links between vaccines and autism. — Paleo Neonate – 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuchenxu ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 ( talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scholarly peer review article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I moved the following section to here, because before reinsertion I think it needs clarification regarding what an "invited paper" is in this sense, and what component of the process (simply absence of peer review?) makes it more "valuable". Mikael Häggström ( talk) 13:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the 10K addition of Result-blind peer review, Gwern. I find numerous issues with it unfortunately.
I think that these types of peer review should be added more carefully and critically, with time context and why some journals never went beyond piloting.
I have flagged basically ALL refs, which may be unstable / linkrot susceptible without complete citation and without archiving.
Adding inline external links is a no-no on WP.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
[1] not sure where to add summary... 212.200.65.108 ( talk) 21:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have tagged two sources as potentially unreliable. Fringe proponents do complain about peer review but the process effectively prevents them from corrupting science, making their claims akin to conspiracy theories. It is legitimate for mainstream journals to reject disproven claims of links between vaccines and autism. — Paleo Neonate – 09:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 1 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yuchenxu ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Icecream209 ( talk) 07:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)