bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Few things to think about
- This is really a fast evolving scenario. We don't have very many peer reviewed reports. So, we'll have to look at the reputations of authors and how many of their papers have been withdrawn after peer review in the past.
- The confidence with which resident "experts" are saying the disease doesn't spread before symptoms is NOT reflected in what CDC says. CDC just says "thought to be" - a very weak assertion.
You will never see how many papers an author has had rejected. The system doesn't work that way. I've been neck deep in it, and that is just not data that any journal will ever publish.
EDIT - Peer review is part of the publication process - i.e. a journal's editorial staff sends copies of the paper around to peers in the same field as the author. It is anonymous, and those peers have a certain amount of time to read, review, and write up comments on the paper. This is a very laborious process, as the comments sometimes are nearly as long as the paper itself. Then there is a back and forth to give the author time to correct or explain things which were brought up by the peer review.
Basically, the German publisher should have never let that paper out in the open without some kind of peer review. It's bad form and precedent.
Anyone remember Andrew Wakefield? He falsified research and claimed a definitive link between vaccines and autism. That paper has since been disproven (we've spent more on this topic than all of the Apollo missions to send men to the moon). Despite being disproven it did huge damage to the confidence of the public in the scientific community and even the physician-patient relationship. This scenario is exactly why peer review exists.
Last edited: