Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
That's one reason, of course, that scientific journal have a peer-review process, to try to see that "bad science" doesn't make it into print. Research reported in such journals is generally more trustworthy than independently-published reports.
|
No doubt about that point in my mind. That is: a review is better than none.
Nevertheless it is quite common that the reviewing process is very often controlled by lobbying mechanisms, as it is fundamental for the career's advancements of the authors, and for the clout of the reviewers.
More than trustworthiness of science, my doubts are about science communication, both thorough journals and conference (at large) and press.