OK so I'm a layman and I've always been told that peer review is key to knowing whether a thing is trustable. Can someone explain >
-
-
Replying to @KillerMartinis
what the metric is for the general public to trust a study if peer review isn't it?
12 replies 3 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @KillerMartinis
I think
@emilygorcenski might be a good person to ask.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @lehudgins @KillerMartinis
Thanks! I've actually spoken on this recently. Peer review is flawed, perhaps deeply, but there is value to it.
3 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
Another metric is Impact Factor. This is also imperfect but it carries a lot of weight. High impact journals have more to lose.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Academic capitalism is bad, but impact factor does serve its use. Another benchmark is openness. Did a study make a preprint/data available
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
And was that preprint/were those data publicly reviewable, e.g. not limited to a gated cadre of chosen reviewers? That's good if so.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Do the authors have legitimate reputations in their field? Amateur serendipity is very rare. Definitely things to look in to.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.