• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 31st anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

The importance of peer review

Ken555

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
15,036
Reaction score
6,165
Location
Los Angeles
Resorts Owned
Westin Kierland
Sheraton Desert Oasis
With the numerous articles and videos published quickly in recent months about C19, it seems many people are skipping the part that says they were not yet peer reviewed. This means that most of them are wrong or incomplete, if history is any guide. With this in mind, I thought it wise to remind everyone that all these documents we are reading, sharing, and believing in may be completely wrong. The same is especially true for the videos we see on YouTube.

From UC Berkeley:
Peer review does the same thing for science that the "inspected by #7" sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they're doing has double-checked it.

From the NIH:
Peer review has been defined as a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review.

Summary of the process:
b221a7a38b50b10bf2b69ff33617b3ff.jpg

4a9737c51410e987b54c300dceff3ad1.jpg

ebc0c290645d675beb0e675eff7e1f34.jpg

7bb1b03655fbbb208b65702ccc616b51.jpg

f02755ce80021272b3266c5edc7e9e84.jpg

7b7f19c3e16b62724cfbd79738053459.jpg

29306436cbf7d7a499703b98efcfa7c9.jpg

d11d239587762c3eba97d8815ff06ac6.jpg

c9d0d3bed00fd20e7d4c0bc261e40935.jpg

886aa8ce9ed3b19363cf11263d722d55.jpg

feabb5151f7ede6aeb9b1f639c51e372.jpg

971956444cd62b427ec6d7698f6ca2bd.jpg

b99b9643ac464249ec170894b128319e.jpg

3103123fffb40d90b4828232da699690.jpg

b96c73c2a1a22ac903cf479f3beda400.jpg

343e8140ab0d85fad77b909081772be0.jpg

e2cb8beef392830b9aa0037c9a83f702.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Simply because an article or video, when compared to a scientific publication, doesn't note a peer review proclamation, does not make it "wrong or incomplete".
You do understand you're comparing the proverbial apples to oranges?

Katie Everson does have quite the talent though. ;)
 
Simply because an article or video, when compared to a scientific publication, doesn't note a peer review proclamation, does not make it "wrong or incomplete".
No, not citing peer review does not make it wrong. But it does make it unsubstantiated and therefore should not be blindly accepted as correct.
 
Good graphic to show the process of getting through a peer review. Just to keep this in perspective, with Covid being so new, there has not yet been enough time to get through peer review.
 
No, not citing peer review does not make it wrong. But it does make it unsubstantiated and therefore should not be blindly accepted as correct.
Nor should it be blindly discounted as incorrect.
 
Nor should it be blindly discounted as incorrect.

It appears that with ~80% (I will try to find time to substantiate that estimate later) of articles requiring adjustment during peer review, it should indicate to us all that most are incomplete. This does not mean they are wrong; however, it should be sufficient to cause you to question them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Great. So you are saying anything you say is "wrong or incomplete". Sounds good to me! :ROFLMAO:

Kurt

Kurt,

I’ve always thought that the lack of peer review was a concern. It’s taken us two months of confusion to get to the point we can discuss this issue with perspective.

Still, I suspect that it doesn’t matter what I say, nor how many scientists agree with it...you still might not believe it.

All the best,
Ken


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Let's not forget that virtually everything we knew about Covid 19 at the beginning (including the famous models) was not peer reviewed. The pace of information has been so fast that most of what we know even now has not been properly reviewed.
 
The flaw in this thread is in comparing internet blogs/articles/video (that we can all see) to industry/scientifically published papers and lectures (that are behind firewalls) for peer consideration.

Apples. Oranges.
 
The flaw in this thread is in comparing internet blogs/articles/video (that we can all see) to industry/scientifically published papers and lectures (that are behind firewalls) for peer consideration.

Apples. Oranges.
In about 1 minute I found the 3 papers I wrote and none were behind a paywall.
 
Let's not forget that virtually everything we knew about Covid 19 at the beginning (including the famous models) was not peer reviewed. The pace of information has been so fast that most of what we know even now has not been properly reviewed.

I suppose it wasn’t obvious, but that is the singular reason why I started this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
It appears that with ~80% (I will try to find time to substantiate that estimate later) of articles requiring adjustment during peer review, it should indicate to us all that most are incomplete. This does not mean they are wrong; however, it should be sufficient to cause you to question them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Believe half of what see, none of what you read and everything I say. ;)
 
Believe half of what see, none of what you read and everything I say. ;)

Yup, I thought that was the rule. Thanks for confirming it!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Looked like the "censored" emoji to me ( :censored: ), and certainly didn't look like any kind of smiley face. You must have a different set of emoji's.

Kurt

No worries.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Now that’s done with and we’re all friends again... let’s focus on the importance of peer review, eh? If you want to joke, please see my Stay At Home Humor thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Top