tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6161112760110770053..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Rationally Speaking podcast: Peer ReviewUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37229833729928427312012-03-28T10:57:22.563-04:002012-03-28T10:57:22.563-04:00"Physicist Michael Nielsen points out that pe..."Physicist <a href="http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/" rel="nofollow">Michael Nielsen points out</a> that peer review is historically rare (just one of Einstein’s 300 papers was peer reviewed; the famous Nature did not institute peer review until 1967), has been <a href="javascript:void(0);" rel="nofollow">nationally biased</a>, erroneously rejects many historic discoveries (one study lists “<a href="http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencereports/20082.html" rel="nofollow">34 Nobel Laureates whose awarded work was rejected by peer review</a>”; <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/263/10/1438.abstract" rel="nofollow">Horribin 1990</a> lists others like the discovery of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/quarks" rel="nofollow">quarks</a>), and catches only a <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/3/237" rel="nofollow">small fraction</a> of errors. And fraud? <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738" rel="nofollow">Forget about it.</a>"<br /><br />From http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#fn50JoshJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13232627951659106765noreply@blogger.com