this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
48 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35913 readers
975 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Also: how do you identify a work as peer reviewed?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If its peer reviewed then it should go through the experimental setup, the data and accompanying math. They can be evaluated by anyone with enough basic knowledge with math usually being the limiting factor. For example there was this study about animal intelligence that the criteria was if they could recognize themselves in a mirror. Birds and dolphins made the cut but not dogs. My complaint was it was biased to animals where vision was their more primary sense. Now im not an expert in the field but I can still find fault in that way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Though, that's not peer review. What you're describing is reproducibility. And that's the very minimum to qualify as science. If it doesn't describe the experiment well enough so an expert can follow it... It's not even proper science.

Peer review means, several expert in that domain already took some time to go through it and point out flaws, comment on the methodology and gave a recommendation to either publish it or fix mistakes. It's not the ability to do it, but that it actually already happened. And it has to be other researchers from the same field.

And there is even another possible step after that, if an independent other research group decides to reproduce the experiment and confirm and verify the results.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I know what peer review is, its just that peer reviewed things also tend to be scientific studies. I mean I know there are studies of studies and such.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair enough. Maybe we had a different understanding of OP's question. I took it to mean, how can I find out a given article/paper has been reviewed... And that's not done by looking if it looks scientific, but if the review process has happened.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Has nothing to do with OPs question. You missed the very first sentence to the comment your first responded to

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I pointed out my reasoning in the other comment to my reply. Sure, if it's proper peer reviewed since, it'll follow the process. But that doesn't answer OP's question. I agree, however. If it's proper science, it's proper science. I just wanted to stick with the question at hand. And there is no causal relationship between peer-review and reproducibility, other than that it's both part of science. So I got mislead by the ... if ... then ... phrasing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your reasoning doesn't matter if it's being applied to the wrong problem.

This is not about OP.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Sure. I don't want to argue. I took it as that, since it was a direct reply to a specific question. And i think my short outline of what the word means is mostly correct.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No one said it wasn't correct... Why did you even bring that up?!? You accused the person you first replied to it, describing a process that isn't the peer review process, skipping that they used the process they described only on something that is already peer reviewed...

I was(perhaps a poor attempt) trying to be a bit silly but pointing out a mistake you made accusing them of something they didnt do. But you just dont want to let it go and keep drilling deeper. Its quite surprising to me you can't just say, oh whoops, and carry on

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That is because the first 4 or so words are about the topic. And then is a long paragraph describing something else. And I didn't do any accusations. I pointed out that those several sentences are about reproducibility and not to be mistaken for the topic at hand. And they are. So I don't get it, I don't think I made any whoopsie. I just pointed out that we're now talking about a different topic and reproducibility isn't review. Which is true... Seems to me everyone is right? I don't see any factual disagreement here. And if my "accusation" is saying they talked about reproducibility... That's kind of what happened?!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

if its peer reviewed.

You kinda glossed right over that didnt you? Maybe an edit is in your future?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but the question was: how does someone find out something is peer reviewed? And phrasing it like this is silly... It's peer reviewed if it's peer reviewed... That's a tautology. Sure it's true. But it doesn't mean anything. And if you take the implication the other way round (as I did), it's wrong. That's what I pointed out. Minus the tautology part.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay Ojay okay. Help me out. Why are you claiming that this is the question?

"The question was: how does someone find out something is peer reviewed"

Please literally show where you see this being asked. It was not asked in the top comment, nor is it necessary to ask. I don't understand why you feel it is silly or unnecessary as it is very clearly used for a specific purpose when i read the top comment.

~~Again you are wrong. It was not the question of the top comment you responded to. That was a follow up question that is irrelevant because the comment you that started this discussion cleanly clearly and unambiguously removed any need to discuss how to find out if something is peer reviewed by the first words they started the comment with.~~

~~If it is peer reviewed...~~

~~And they gave an example of something that you could do to further verify a peer reviewed paper. You can replicate the experiment and get the same results but then offered an example where there might be a problem with only reproducing the results, to them anyway~~

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That'd be the body text of the post:

Also: how do you identify a work as peer reviewed?

Then HubertManne directly replied to that: "If its peer reviewed then ..."

Then I replied saying, everything after the "then" (the main text of the comment) has nothing to do with peer review but is a different concept. So no one gets the impression you can make the judgement the other way around: If it's doing that, then it's peer-reviewed. Because that'd be wrong.

And then we started having this lengthy discussion. Do you concur? Or are we having some technical difficulties, and we're somehow seeing a different post/comment tree?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Okay I'm done with this you are just being obstinate or intentionlly trolling me