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
I have a great new idea. I devise an experiment to demonstrate my idea. It seems to show that my idea is true. I submit the paper for publication, and the publication sends it to other experts to see if there are any glaring errors. They might see faults in my methodology or data. If they don’t see big problems, the publication publishes, and my idea and experimental methodology are shared. The other experts are my “peers” (equals).
Once it has been peer-review published in a reputable journal that doesn’t make my idea accepted fact yet, because other people will try to disprove it / see if they can replicate my results. They are also my peers. If enough people can reproduce my results and people generally agree that my interpretation is correct, it starts to be accepted as an idea, and others start to build upon it.
Look at “Dr” Andrew Wakefield who started off publishing in a very reputable journal, but over time his peers couldn’t find evidence to back up his MMR vaccine claims, and over time disproved them, and later still showed that he was a fraud who faked his results in oreder to increase sales of separate vaccines that he had a financial stake in. It takes a long time to weed out the fraud, but it is rigorous over time, and science rejects things which aren’t demonstrable.
Latest Answers