Quote:
Originally Posted by LabRat
So, they are telling what they found out, and you are saying OK, that must be true then. Right?
|
No.
Quote:
|
Just because a "Research Institution" says something , doesn't mean it's necessarily right.
|
True. I never said otherwise.
Quote:
|
All scientific articles must go thru a peer review process before being accepted for publication, online and eventually print in a scientific journal. The papers are usually sent to 3 researchers in the same field, who are asked to review the paper. (If they do not wish to review it, it is sent out again until at least 3 people review it.) If all 3 say sure, looks good to us, it generally gets published. If there are apparent problems withthe method of experiment, or conclusions drawn, the author(s) are either asked to make corrections and resubmit for further review, or the paper is totally denied for that publication in that journal. The Authors can then send the paper out to another (less picky/lower quality) journal, and try to get it published again, with or without revisions.
|
Don't try to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs, girlie. :p
Quote:
I am a researcher, so I know this process. 
|
I was undertaking research when you were just a gleam in your parents' eyes.
Quote:
|
Essentially this is what Wiki is doing also. The info is out there, but "we" are the reviewers. It's really no more or less reliable than the set of people reviewing the initial submissions.
|
Rubbish. First Wiki is not a recognised, nor supported, academic resource, and secondly, any given entry can be modified by anyone, and even the "editors" often cannot agree - a fact admitted on NPR by the head of Wiki last Friday. He said that he knows of entries that have been modified several times in only a few minutes, and that he has no control over it. He seemed to be quite proud of it. Strange.