Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Aug 17, 2017.
The author himself looks to have some views based on the "about the author" section that I am very sceptical of but the article itself raises some interesting points.
I wish I hadn't looked at this. Some of his arguments are interesting. But then you look at his bio, and it looks like he's motivated not simply by a desire to get to the real truth - more a desire to find a platform for certain rather questionable beliefs.
The problem isn't peer review, the problem is people unwilling to use their brains. Wise people do not believe a conclusion simply because it was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal. The only truth in a scientific paper (assuming no fraud) is the method and the results. Everything else is opinion.
Passing peer review only admits a paper into the highest level of debate, not into scientific heaven.
peer reviews add legitimacy to papers and validate them so that everyone else doesnt have to delve into the science and intricacies of process to have to work out if it is true or not. As guideline committees etc assume that published papers speak the truth then showing peer review is flawed adds another piece to the jigsaw of evidence the ME community is trying to build.
That's reserved for articles published in the NEJM and The Lancet right?
I've not finished reading yet, but was struck by this
Best retract PACE then, eh?
One might wonder how he sleeps at night, and how he gets out of bed in the morning.
The issues raised on this thread - http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ised-about-crawley-school-absence-stud.53544/ - illustrate how ethical questions/concerns raised by a peer reviewer (Matthew Hotopf) can apparently be ignored by the publishing journal - in this case BMJ Open. This surely makes a nonsense of the peer review process?
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.