Creationist Research Paper

Creationist Research Paper-12
Indeed, virtually every major scientific and medical journal has on numerous occasions published findings that are later discredited.There appears to be a widespread belief among non-scientists that published research has been independently repeated and verified, when in reality journal editors simply rely on peer reviewers’ criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm.

Indeed, virtually every major scientific and medical journal has on numerous occasions published findings that are later discredited.There appears to be a widespread belief among non-scientists that published research has been independently repeated and verified, when in reality journal editors simply rely on peer reviewers’ criticisms, which are based on the information submitted by the authors.He points out the advantage of peer review but then documents its many shortcomings in practice, including rejecting top research while admitting fraud, as well as an all-too-common role in protecting the ruling paradigm.

On many occasions my own submissions and those of others have been greatly improved by reviewers’ feedback.

I have also, at times, recommended against publishing a particular submission—not because I disagreed with the author’s conclusions, but because I discovered false assumptions or serious flaws in the arguments presented.

Nevertheless, in many people’s estimation the description ‘peer-reviewed’ has become shorthand for ‘quality.’ To say that an article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is to assert scientific validation and approval.

To say that an article has not been peer-reviewed is tantamount to calling it disreputable.

This is why, to keep the advantages and overcome its drawbacks, creationists have started their own journals, e.g.

CMI’s longstanding publication now titled Journal of Creation. note: subsequently published in Journal of Creation 22(1):44–49, 2008; see PDF.] Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work.

The editors of the journal have the final say, and can often override the recommendations of peer reviewers.

In any case, many landmark scientific papers (like Watson’s and Crick’s on DNA) were never subjected to peer review, and as David Shatz has pointed out, ‘many heavily cited papers, including some describing work which won a Nobel Prize, were originally rejected by peer review.’ The First Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation of energy) was first formulated by German physician J. However, Mayer’s revolutionary research was rejected by the leading German physics journal in our history.

Anonymous peer review by jealous competitors has its merits, but it has a tendency to select for fashionable if relatively unoriginal and inoffensive papers …

although these reports often do not substantively advance scientific knowledge, and many subsequently are invalidated.’ It should also be noted that peer review panels do not necessarily determine whether an article is published.

SHOW COMMENTS

Comments Creationist Research Paper

The Latest from granarts.ru ©