Thread: Seriousness In science we Trust.
View Single Post
Old 10-17-2010, 06:45 AM   #24
beppe
Grand Sorcerer
beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.beppe ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 5,161
Karma: 81026524
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Italy
Device: Kindle3, Ipod4, IPad2
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
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.
beppe is offline   Reply With Quote