|Page 1 of 1|
|Author:||Wayne Stollings [ Fri Dec 30, 2011 1:08 pm ]|
|Post subject:||"Peer-review publications|
In a couple of areas on the Internet I have noticed people presenting "peer-reviewed" publications as evidence of the lack of existence of the Greenhouse Effect and other "denialist" claims.
I found one of the publishers of some of the referenced papers and discovered they are private publishers with "investor" support.
Peer-review publications IS a critical aspect of science advancement, however the quality of the peer-review and the publication itself is also a critical aspect. This is why publications such as "Energy and Environment" are not generally recognized as a peer-reviewed publication, but as an industry publication.
If a paper has to pay to be published or has to "shop" for publications in less closely related fields in order to be published there is generally going to be a question as to why it was treated in such a fashion. If new and groundbreaking evidence overturning decades or centuries of previously accepted science is going to be published, there will be less credibility if the paper is self-published, published by a private group more like a book than a peer-reviewed paper, or published in the area some unrelated field of study.
Another aspect is how often the publication is cited by other publications not refuting the claims made. If there are few other scientists citing the paper there must not be very strong evidence provided or there is some other lack of credibility involved.
|Page 1 of 1||All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]|
|Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group