back
2 comments
Not that that would help anyway. That's becoming increasingly an appeal to authority. There isn't anybody to do the review that isn't a colleague or a competitor, or worse part of an established GroupThink.

Peer review has had its day due to specialisation in science. The gold standard now has to be replication from the published method.

Therefore: not replicated.

Peer reviewed is not the gold standard, it is the bare minimum for lay people to start paying attention.
It's an appeal to authority. Authority which is not established but the process. Increasingly it adds nothing.
I like seeing the strategy of asking for the highest level of accuracy and testing for all things that do not confirm my biases while being more lax about the things that confirm my biases. I've seen this strategy becoming much more popular these past few years.