25
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
25 points (96.3% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35833 readers
1080 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Though, that's not peer review. What you're describing is reproducibility. And that's the very minimum to qualify as science. If it doesn't describe the experiment well enough so an expert can follow it... It's not even proper science.
Peer review means, several expert in that domain already took some time to go through it and point out flaws, comment on the methodology and gave a recommendation to either publish it or fix mistakes. It's not the ability to do it, but that it actually already happened. And it has to be other researchers from the same field.
And there is even another possible step after that, if an independent other research group decides to reproduce the experiment and confirm and verify the results.
You kinda glossed right over that didnt you? Maybe an edit is in your future?
Yeah, but the question was: how does someone find out something is peer reviewed? And phrasing it like this is silly... It's peer reviewed if it's peer reviewed... That's a tautology. Sure it's true. But it doesn't mean anything. And if you take the implication the other way round (as I did), it's wrong. That's what I pointed out. Minus the tautology part.
I know what peer review is, its just that peer reviewed things also tend to be scientific studies. I mean I know there are studies of studies and such.
Fair enough. Maybe we had a different understanding of OP's question. I took it to mean, how can I find out a given article/paper has been reviewed... And that's not done by looking if it looks scientific, but if the review process has happened.
Has nothing to do with OPs question. You missed the very first sentence to the comment your first responded to
Yeah, I pointed out my reasoning in the other comment to my reply. Sure, if it's proper peer reviewed since, it'll follow the process. But that doesn't answer OP's question. I agree, however. If it's proper science, it's proper science. I just wanted to stick with the question at hand. And there is no causal relationship between peer-review and reproducibility, other than that it's both part of science. So I got mislead by the ... if ... then ... phrasing.
Your reasoning doesn't matter if it's being applied to the wrong problem.
This is not about OP.
Sure. I don't want to argue. I took it as that, since it was a direct reply to a specific question. And i think my short outline of what the word means is mostly correct.
No one said it wasn't correct... Why did you even bring that up?!? You accused the person you first replied to it, describing a process that isn't the peer review process, skipping that they used the process they described only on something that is already peer reviewed...
I was(perhaps a poor attempt) trying to be a bit silly but pointing out a mistake you made accusing them of something they didnt do. But you just dont want to let it go and keep drilling deeper. Its quite surprising to me you can't just say, oh whoops, and carry on
That is because the first 4 or so words are about the topic. And then is a long paragraph describing something else. And I didn't do any accusations. I pointed out that those several sentences are about reproducibility and not to be mistaken for the topic at hand. And they are. So I don't get it, I don't think I made any whoopsie. I just pointed out that we're now talking about a different topic and reproducibility isn't review. Which is true... Seems to me everyone is right? I don't see any factual disagreement here. And if my "accusation" is saying they talked about reproducibility... That's kind of what happened?!