And this is why peer review is a joke.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Definition not changed. I just want to get a sense of why the science behind it was considered sound enough to not be immediately dismissed. Think of peer review like american idol tryouts. Except this time they let willaim hung into the competition.

So two guys get to decide which ideas everyone gets to see?

I mean, sure, if it's obvious junk science like perpetual motion or some shit, but it sounds to me like the actual result is that new or shocking ideas are squelched.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

It could be a journal prone to quackery. Ive not heard of it before. Plus the problem with reviewers is that authors can recommend reviewers and those reviewers remain anonymous

twid
used to submit my old bosses' articles to various cancer journals for them

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It could be a journal prone to quackery. Ive not heard of it before. Plus the problem with reviewers is that authors can recommend reviewers and those reviewers remain anonymous

twid
used to submit my old bosses' articles to various cancer journals for them

It sounds like Kai and I agree that the system is a fucking joke, but for very different reasons.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

In theory the two reviewers are there to check to see if the study or experiment is flawed. But obviously the process itself is flawed and can be abused to sideline good science and advance bad science. I was always uncomfortable with it even when it was to advance our own findings.

[Kai]

Because a paper 'refuting' the HIV-AIDS link has made it into a peer reviewed journal.

I don't understand something, Kai...A peer-reviewed journal will only (in theory) publish something believed to correct, rather than something they wish to discuss?

TGRR,
A little unclear on the subject.

A peer review journal generally publishes on the below grounds.

1. The logic and methods in the paper are sound.

2. The conclusions stem from the results.

3. The writing is adequate.

4. The reviewers are satisfied (or at least will write it off as "ready to go").

5. The material contains new evidence or at least new arguments.

6. The paper is relevant to the topic matter of the journal (and is high enough profile research).


In good journals, this is true of everything from high impact important discoveries and crucial experiments, to philosophical discussions and book reviews. Some of the most interesting pieces I've read in journals have been works of philosophical or public discussion. But as I said, these have to follow a logical progression, have adequate writing, and present new ideas.

In the case of AIDS, the link between HIV and the syndrome has been established for decades, and generally papers that deny this are rejected outright. This was a perspective piece originally published in Medical Hypotheses, which was at the time not a peer reviewed journal. They claim to publish radical, non-mainstream hypotheses that are clearly expressed, and since it wasn't peer reviewed basically anything went. There was a great deal of public fervor and demand that it be withdrawn, since the HIV epidemic is a matter of global health. The editor was subsequently sacked and the paper withdrawn; now the journal /is/ peer review. It's important to note that this is a perspective piece and not an experimental work. It contains no new arguments, and all the arguments it does contain are old and tired. Even as a discussion, regardless of the topic, it shouldn't have been published on those grounds; when a single scientist publishes the same paper twice it's not only confusing, but it's considered self-plagiarism. It's even more so plagiarism to take someone elses ideas and pose them as your own, without any new information added. That it got through peer review after it has been withdrawn from a non peer reviewed journal suggests something very broken about that journal's peer review process. 

Summary: A journal publishes all sorts of things, but among a short list of other rules, they have to be /new/ in some way to warrant publication. The peer review process is suppose to weed out manuscripts which do not have new information, and in this case it failed.

It's also idiotic. The evidence for HIV causing AIDS is so well established that arguing it is /not/ is like arguing against evolution or plate tectonics. We've sequenced it, imaged it's action on white blood cells, tracked it's transfer in body fluids, and watched as it suppresses immune systems enough to allow the common cold to kill otherwise healthy adults. "It is not clear that HIV causes AIDS" is dumb and dead.

[LMNO]

Put it this way: Without peer review, you'd get dozens of papers in physics journals about perpetual motion machines and Quantum Jumping.

[Kai]

Definition not changed. I just want to get a sense of why the science behind it was considered sound enough to not be immediately dismissed. Think of peer review like american idol tryouts. Except this time they let willaim hung into the competition.

So two guys get to decide which ideas everyone gets to see?

I mean, sure, if it's obvious junk science like perpetual motion or some shit, but it sounds to me like the actual result is that new or shocking ideas are squelched.

More often than not, when new and shocking ideas have evidence, they get published in really high profile journals. The purpose of a journal isn't to publish mere opinion. That's what newspapers and blogs are for. And if a paper is rejected by one journal? There are plenty of other journals out there.

[Kai]

More information on Duesberg here.

Duesberg claims that the use of massive recreational drug use by gay men causes AIDS, not the HIV virus.

[Cain]

I would also expect to see a large incidence of AIDS among the banking community then.

Sadly, this is not so far the case.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

More information on Duesberg here.

Duesberg claims that the use of massive recreational drug use by gay men causes AIDS, not the HIV virus.

WHAT THE FUCK.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

[Cramulus]

Not trying to threadjack, but I am compelled to post this here:

[Kai]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

So a journal is a newspaper, now. Great.

[Phox]

Romagnoli says he decided to review the revised paper because the original was withdrawn by Medical Hypotheses not for "flawed or falsified data" but for "highly controversial opinions" — which the IJAE's readers can make up their own minds about.

He has a point.

So a journal is a newspaper, now. Great.

Maybe this is just the FOX of journals?