Talk:Peer review

Logical error: the map is not the ground
Reading this, I notice a gap in RW, namely: there could stand to be a note somewhere about Mistaking the map for the territory, exemplified here by the loose use of the word "peer" (as in, "confusion, within creationist circles, about the meaning of 'peer...'")

I have been looking under Category:Logic, and have not yet found something that describes an argument that misuses a specialized term that also has a popular meaning, with just enough equivalence and difference between the two to create confusion.

No time to pursue this further just now... a little help? Sprocket J Cogswell 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) "
 * Or something like that. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I like your sentence better and it accounts for other cases such as rejecting groundbreaking research which is also in this two references as far as i can remember. I will make the change. Btw, based on experience journals do keep a record of all communications between editors and authors but still when you have a single person judging something it can be problematic. Micdhack (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And now we wait to see if ADK, who put the tag there, has problems with it... Peter Monomorium antarcticum 08:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of those points need citations, to be honest. So long as there is some indication that it's not just "in my experience", that's fine. Scarlet A.pngtheist 08:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Guide
Peer reviewed papers take training to read understand, partly because they have a bit of jargon in them. I think we should have a page on how to read a peer reviewed paper. I think we should have make a guide on how to read a peer reviewed paper, perhaps with minimum snark so those that aren't in our political target demographic won't be reluctant to read it if they some how come across it. We can start by plagiarizing http://wp.me/p3pAiO-ab and modify that. Alternatively If you think that is sufficient for those outside our political demographic, we can make an article for us, with the snark (or we can make both). Either way maybe we should credit the basis for our article if we choose to start by copying someone else's guide. Obviously the Peer Review page should link to the guide. -- Corpse in the bed (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A guide to reading a proper reviewed paper is more commonly known as "a graduate degree in that subject area". That post in external links would be a good start, though. Scarlet A.png't click here 09:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The picture/flowchart at the beginning of the article
After the comment step, is it still the same paper or a different paper already? Perhaps the picture need to be clarified. User:K61824User_talk:K61824 22:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)