- 5,963
- 726
This is a very important point, the number of papers that I see that are just flat out poor yet published (sometimes in respectable journals) is worrying. It behooves everyone to remember that peer-review is the absolute minimum for credibility, nothing more. The validity of a study should be based on it's methodology and the conclusions drawn from the data, this is a bigger discussion of course but it is very important to keep in mind.bobze said:Its also important to remember that because something is in the scientific literature it isn't "laid in stone" or the "grail". Lots and lots of crappy papers get published and pass-peer review (even in journals like Science and Nature--Remember that whole arsenic thing?). Simply knowing something is published literature doesn't inform one on the topic. One has to take it a step further and use that scientific training of theirs to discriminate whether said publication is saying something significant or not. That is something most laymen are not capable of doing. Which is why for a non-scientist a general link to something like Wikipedia is great.![]()
We don't want to perpetuate the idea that published = credible or correct.