Peer reviewed article shows peer reviewing is bunk..?

[harry]

Psychology is 99% bullshit anyway. Not really a science. Down there with media studies.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

What happened in the end? Did he never get the PhD?

Michael

[Mark]

OMG. Then you'd end up with something like the Daily Wail "Have you say".

I think that anononmysing the paper would be a good step.

But who gets to decide?

[polygonum]

Certainly agree that it would not be easy to come up with a sensible process.

And we don't need another place for the Daily Mailers to splurge.

But something has to change, at least in the health and medical arena. (I suspect that abstruse physics is likely better served by peer review than is health.)

[Huge]

Nope.

[The Natural Philosopher]

And that shows you why if you publish ANYTHING anywhere NEAR 'climate change' it had better be 'on message'