she *specifically* says that quality science depends on people like her to vet papers that might have slipped through the peer-review cracks. that endorses *more* peer review, not that it’s somehow fallacious or an appeal to authority to have the processhttps://twitter.com/microbiomdigest/status/1121798695689703425?s=21 …
I am NOT debating the merits of peer review. I am debating the tactic of citing peer review as if it makes an idea above reproach and also that lack of such invalidates an idea.
-
-
if that’s your point, then no one is arguing with you. it fits into the restaurant analogy https://twitter.com/bruceekirk/status/1135190085765279745?s=21 … but not the way you framed it, or the way you’ve been carrying the debate forward. of course non-reviewed material can be good! this is what a “preprint” is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ah, so you're debating against a straw man. No one, least of all myself argues that passing peer review "makes an idea above reproach" or that "lack of peer review invalidates an idea."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.