Comment on Bots are better than humans at cracking ‘Are you a robot?’ Captcha tests, study finds

• Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Unfortunately not. www.nature.com/articles/533452a

  Most peer reviewed papers are non reproducible. Peer review has the primary purpose of telling the editor how sellable is a paper in a small community he only superficially knows, and to make it more attractive to that community by suggesting rephrasing of paragraphs, additional references, additional supporting experiment to clarify unclear point.

  But it doesn’t guarantees methodology is not flawed. Editor chooses reviewer very superficially, and reviews are mainly driven by biases, and reviewers cannot judge the quality of a research because they do not reproduce it

  source

  • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes. A senior colleague sometimes tongue-in-cheek referred to it as Pee Review.

    source

    • Zeth0s@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The downvotes to my comments shows that no many people here has ever done research or knows the editorial system of scientific journals :D

      source

      • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        There is some variation across disciplines; I do think that in general the process does catch a lot of frank rubbish (and discourages submission of obvious rubbish), but from time to time I do come across inherently flawed work in so-called “high impact factor” and allegedly “prestigious” journals.

        In the end, even after peer review, you need to have a good understanding of the field and to have developed and applied your critical appraisal skills.

        source

        • -> View More Comments