And this is why peer review is a joke.

[Kai]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[LMNO]

I am speechless.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The idea is to invite other scientists to test the findings in the paper. But theres gotta be some sort of weird thing going on in this paper. This might actually be something i can look up on my work comp since i work at an epidemiology/virology lab. Im away from my desk atm though.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The idea is to invite other scientists to test the findings in the paper.

Okay, so it's a tool for getting rid of bad signal.

I'm not sure I see the problem here?  I mean, okay, it's junk science, but isn't this exactly why you'd WANT it put up where people can hack it to bits?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Kai whos the first author and whats the name of the paper? And i guess more importantly what journal?

[LMNO]

The idea is to invite other scientists to test the findings in the paper.

Okay, so it's a tool for getting rid of bad signal.

I'm not sure I see the problem here?  I mean, okay, it's junk science, but isn't this exactly why you'd WANT it put up where people can hack it to bits?

From what I can tell, the "peer-review" process includes having other scientists look at it prior to publishing, to confirm its validity.

The fact that this is seeing print means two or more people looked at this paper which claims HIV does not cause AIDS, and said, "Seem legit."

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The idea is to invite other scientists to test the findings in the paper.

Okay, so it's a tool for getting rid of bad signal.

I'm not sure I see the problem here?  I mean, okay, it's junk science, but isn't this exactly why you'd WANT it put up where people can hack it to bits?

From what I can tell, the "peer-review" process includes having other scientists look at it prior to publishing, to confirm its validity.

The fact that this is seeing print means two or more people looked at this paper which claims HIV does not cause AIDS, and said, "Seem legit."

According to the article, there were two (2) "peer reviewers".  I was just told that the idea was for scientists to test the idea, not for two (2) people to approve it as writ...That's not enough people, to bypass the prejudices and preconceived ideas that people come equipped with.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Thats why i want to take a look at the paper. This is going to be like that vaccine autism thing. I want to see how this could have passed peer review.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thats why i want to take a look at the paper. This is going to be like that vaccine autism thing. I want to see how this could have passed peer review.

WAIT

Now YOUR definition has changed.

[Phox]

The reworked version of the paper, led by Peter Duesberg of the University of California, Berkeley, who is well known for denying the link between HIV and AIDS, was published in the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology (IJAE) last month

There's the pertinent information you requested, Twid.

The idea is to invite other scientists to test the findings in the paper.

Okay, so it's a tool for getting rid of bad signal.

I'm not sure I see the problem here?  I mean, okay, it's junk science, but isn't this exactly why you'd WANT it put up where people can hack it to bits?

I think the issue with it is that by actually publishing it, it lends it credibility in the public sphere. "This article passed peer review, so it must be accurate."

I could be wrong on that, though.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

think the issue with it is that by actually publishing it, it lends it credibility in the public sphere. "This article passed peer review, so it must be accurate."

I could be wrong on that, though.

That makes it sound like peer review means "canon".

[Nephew Twiddleton]

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.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Also the problem isnt with scientists refuting the findings. Its the media not understanding the purpose of scientific papers to begin with. So some assholes are going to think this is proof where its still a (very wrong) hypothesis.

[Phox]

think the issue with it is that by actually publishing it, it lends it credibility in the public sphere. "This article passed peer review, so it must be accurate."

I could be wrong on that, though.

That makes it sound like peer review means "canon".

In the minds of many people, it does. Which is not to say that it is/should be.

But I've heard many people say similar things. "This was in The American Journal of Psychiatric Wankery, which, means that it is 100% true."

You and I know that peer review, in theory, should be about testing and retesting things tearing them apart and reconstituting them, and if they are bollocks, then they are bollocks. But people, especially those who work outside the hard sciences, don't tend view it that way in my experience.

Phox,
Now wants to start a peer review journal about psychiatry for some reason...