Hardly ever. Peer review doesn't do that.
@hardsci @sTeamTraenhttps://twitter.com/hardsci/status/1052619925267726336 …
Show this thread
-
The following is cribbed hardcore from Cole et al. (2015), a paper that I love a great deal. They got a sample of doctors, med students, and undergrad scientific staff. n=260. As a peer reviewer group, I'll give them an 'above average'.https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/44/3/862/633130 …
Show this thread
They consented to participate in a study about spotting discrepancies. They were given a paper absolutely stuffed with explicit screw-ups, and told INSPECT THIS PAPER FOR DISCREPANCIES. The results *sucked*. About two-thirds found none. Only 12% found more than 10% of screwups.pic.twitter.com/hVrqzi77qU
-
-
Conclusion, the probability of a discrepancy going unnoticed to ***a sensitized reader*** is 95%. Peer reviewers are (A) not sensitized (B) not participating in studies run by
@ProfDFrancis (C) potentially MORE numerically naive than this sample.pic.twitter.com/1M3vba1QoF
Show this thread -
Peer review checks ideas, theories, procedures, et al. It does *not* explicitly check for errors.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.