Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugchief
|
What did that article say to you?
To me, it raised the possibility that the "peers" doing the peer reviews might be well-funded researchers or researchers working for well-funded companies and universities. Who should a peer reviewer be, someone with no working relationship to the field they are reviewing or someone currently active in the field? Those currently active in the field are funded and some of that funding comes from affected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.
Perhaps a further study will show a bias by those receiving large funding amounts. This article does not mention anything like that.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY
Randallstown, MD
Yakima, WA
Stevensville, MD
Village of Hillsborough
|