Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I thought peer review was about critiquing the results once they're published?
|
Peer review is the process by which manuscripts get published or rejected.
Basically, a researcher submits an article to a journal. The journal then sends the manuscript out to a number of people who are considered knowledgeable in the area. These people (typically 3 or 4) independently critique the paper and give a verdict of accept/reject/accept given modifications. The journal's editor then makes a decision based on these reviews. It's about selecting the research that is good enough to get published.
A similar process is used in bids for research funds from the research councils.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
No matter how you spin it, trying to prevent research from happening in the first place is not good practice. If they're so confident of their own conclusions, and the dodginess of the competition, they should have no concerns about taking part in an open, rigorous and public debate.
|
I haven't followed this one, but perhaps it could be argued they are engaging in a public debate about this?