I’ve been looking at some series that are based on peer-reviewed science like “Missing Links” by Gregg Braden, and I’ve been reading that recent studies use peer-reviewed science, but it’s not clear to me what it really is. If someone could ELI5, I would appreciate it.
In: Other
Peer review raised the likelihood that the conclusions drawn in the study are supported by the data in the study. It is also a process that refines the reporting of the study. It does not necessarily mean the conclusions represent Truth in the Universe.
I submit a paper to a medical journal. An editor reviews it, and decides if the subject, methodology, and conclusions are worth potentially publishing. If yes, the manuscript is submitted to (usually) three or more reviewers, and one of them is often a statistician. The reviewers do a (hopefully) detailed review, with comments to the editor regarding bigger picture issues (2 tables need to be refined and some specific methods need to be better described; this is potentially a useful addition to this body of knowledge), and more detailed comments to the author(s) USUALLY designed to make them better writers. Grammar/typos are left to the editing process if accepted.
The manuscript is rejected with a polite (but often not overly helpful) letter, accepted as is (pretty uncommon), or returned with a request for revisions. If the revisions are then accepted, it gets published. NOW you, the reader, can safely assume that the study is worth your time and effort to read critically (also assuming it is in a journal that you care to read).
***HOWEVER,*** depending on why you are reading the study, you still need to do so critically. What confounders are there that may have influenced the conclusions, and in what direction? In medicine, we know that 40-60% of what gets “accepted” as truth this year will be shown to be not so true over the next 5 years or so…the premise that any science is settled is sketchy beyond some physical constants.
Latest Answers