Peer Reviewed Journals Online

[twizz]

https://doaj.org/

http://www.frontiersin.org/

http://www.omicsonline.org/peer-reviewed-journals.php

I'm tired of seeing threads posted based on pseudoscience and opinion. You do not a have a right to your own REASON or FACT. If you are going to make claims such as "climate change is a hoax" or "humans are not impacting the acceleration of global warming/climate change" you need proof!

I have posted three links above, which gives you access to peer reviewed climate science journals. When it comes to arguing against something that most scientists agree on, you need to have something in the form of proof, meaning a critiqued piece of work done by a recognized expert in that particular field.

 

[Sexy_Dave]

Naive.
How many of those Open Access journals require a fee to publish?
Peer Review is not a guarantee of good science.
Research is not 'proof'. It is evidence to support a hypothesis, nothing more.

 

[twizz]

Naive.
How many of those Open Access journals require a fee to publish?
Peer Review is not a guarantee of good science.
Research is not 'proof'. It is evidence to support a hypothesis, nothing more.

Peer review guarantees scrutiny from established experts in that field, giving it quite a bit of credibility.
Those in the climate science community are the ones that get to determine what is good science in this case, since CLIMATE SCIENCE is what their research is. There is nothing peer reviewed from a well respected climate science journal that supports the "nay" side. Okay if research is not proof what about experiments and studies? Is that not good enough for you?

It seems that some people will argue in circles if something does not fit within their ideology. I also love the fact that those who have no training whatsoever ever can tell climate scientists that they are wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

Naive.
How many of those Open Access journals require a fee to publish?
Peer Review is not a guarantee of good science.
Research is not 'proof'. It is evidence to support a hypothesis, nothing more.

And peer review is an excellent way to investigate hypotheses.
You write a paper, publish it and wait to see if it survives the criticisms of all those who work in your field.
Its exactly the reason that all the 'deniers' refuse to publish works in peer reviewed journals, their work falls on its face under investigation, they are scared chickenshit of having their work publicly inspected.

 

[asuran]

It`s always the ones that are unique or have a different opinion, whether that opinion is correct or not, that sticks out.

Some are right while most are just saying what less educated people want to hear even if they are lies.

Climate change is real. It is a very slow process and takes a very, very long time to proof and that is why it is easily claimed as false because the ones saying that most likely won`t be around when they are proven to be in the wrong. To them, it`s only the future generations that are fucked.

 

[Sexy_Dave]

Peer review guarantees scrutiny from established experts in that field, giving it quite a bit of credibility.
Those in the climate science community are the ones that get to determine what is good science in this case, since CLIMATE SCIENCE is what their research is. There is nothing peer reviewed from a well respected climate science journal that supports the "nay" side. Okay if research is not proof what about experiments and studies? Is that not good enough for you?

It seems that some people will argue in circles if something does not fit within their ideology. I also love the fact that those who have no training whatsoever ever can tell climate scientists that they are wrong.

Unfortunately, peer review does not guarantee credibility. The 'peers' entrusted with doing the review do not necessarily come without their own agendas. Secondly, 'established experts' according to whom? They may just be volunteers with a BSc. Additionally, not all journals, peer reviewed or not are credible. Lit review and critique of previous research in any field requires asking some very basic but important questions regarding the paper under examination. Such as "Who paid for the research?' and 'Where was it published?', 'Did the researcher have to pay to have it published?', 'Who was responsible for vetting the research?' etc. You would be surprised to learn that the process of peer review is flawed in a great many cases. Most recently and notably when Lancet had to pull the research by that guy doing the work on Autism. Or, when the Facebook allowed the researcher to manipulate the news feeds of their membership which he paid to have published in a peer reviewed online journal of some repute and edited by a heavyweight in the field of Social Cognition from Princeton.

Experiments and studies ARE research. They are not 'proof'.

I don't have a dog in this climate change fight, I am just pointing out some facts on peer review and research generally.

In this day and age of Open Access and online publishing you must be very careful as to what you cite for a source. Any bozo can pay to have their research published online.

 

[Sexy_Dave]

And peer review is an excellent way to investigate hypotheses.
You write a paper, publish it and wait to see if it survives the criticisms of all those who work in your field.
Its exactly the reason that all the 'deniers' refuse to publish works in peer reviewed journals, their work falls on its face under investigation, they are scared chickenshit of having their work publicly inspected.

No, you write a paper, submit it to a journal or journals, they have their 'experts' (in some cases 3 but other publications use 2 or maybe even just one depending) go over it and they contact you if they have any concerns. If they are satisfied, they then recommend that it is ok to publish. Then it is up to the journal to decide whether to publish it or not. It may not be topical or the subject of the paper may have been 'done to death', or it may not fit in with that journal's agenda, any number of reasons to decide not to publish it. If they do, only then do 'all' get to see it.

 

[ooh-ya-more]

So I googled "How many science peer reviewed articles proven wrong"

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

An Epidemic of False Claims
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/

Just a few I found.

 

[twizz]

Unfortunately, peer review does not guarantee credibility. The 'peers' entrusted with doing the review do not necessarily come without their own agendas. Secondly, 'established experts' according to whom? They may just be volunteers with a BSc. Additionally, not all journals, peer reviewed or not are credible. Lit review and critique of previous research in any field requires asking some very basic but important questions regarding the paper under examination. Such as "Who paid for the research?' and 'Where was it published?', 'Did the researcher have to pay to have it published?', 'Who was responsible for vetting the research?' etc. You would be surprised to learn that the process of peer review is flawed in a great many cases. Most recently and notably when Lancet had to pull the research by that guy doing the work on Autism. Or, when the Facebook allowed the researcher to manipulate the news feeds of their membership which he paid to have published in a peer reviewed online journal of some repute and edited by a heavyweight in the field of Social Cognition from Princeton.

Experiments and studies ARE research. They are not 'proof'.

I don't have a dog in this climate change fight, I am just pointing out some facts on peer review and research generally.

In this day and age of Open Access and online publishing you must be very careful as to what you cite for a source. Any bozo can pay to have their research published online.

You don't seem to get it.
So basically science cannot prove anything then?
Research by Climate scientists is Climate science, it is that community that gets to determine what is good science in their field. There is an overwhelming conscious by Climate Scientists that climate change is real and accelerated by man. Pretty much any other opinion is irrelevant, we do not ask our mechanics to fix planes. There is no evidence climate scientists are being funded to say climate change is real, however the same cannot be said for the other side


Most peer reviewed journal databases are not open access, the ones that are used by universities require permission. I just posted some free databases online to challenge the "nay" side to find something.

Mr. Harper is also afraid that government scientists will tell truth about climate if he wasn't, he would let them speak.

 

[Mencken]

I think peer review is a very important part of a process for validating a given thesis....but there are other necessary components. First, I think the journal has to have some credibility in the first place. And the research and findings are always only the first step....the peer review of an article is not a guarantee that the work and results have been replicated. Many, if not most, initial findings or results do not stand up to the test of replication. May be a fine peer reviewed article in a fine journal....but that is only the beginning of a process to verify "fact"

 

[twizz]

So I googled "How many science peer reviewed articles proven wrong"

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

An Epidemic of False Claims
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/

Just a few I found.

Bullshit articles.

 

[whitewaterguy]

I concur ..the climate has been changing...then again...has it not been doing so for billions of years? Only diff now, cash cow for researchers, essentially stating the obvious. Options for how you can make a difference : crack a cold Moosehead, put on some tunes, and enjoy the minutiae of your totally insignificant existence...it'll end soon enough for you, without you needing to stress about it

Cheers

 

[Frankfooter]

I concur ..the climate has been changing...then again...has it not been doing so for billions of years? Only diff now, cash cow for researchers, essentially stating the obvious.

Nonsense, you'd have to get thousands of scientists from over 100 countries to all commit to faking papers to try to pull that off.
Its a totally ridiculous claim if you even thought about it for a second.

 

[twizz]

Nonsense, you'd have to get thousands of scientists from over 100 countries to all commit to faking papers to try to pull that off.
Its a totally ridiculous claim if you even thought about it for a second.

Exactly. Basically a conspiracy theory claim that these researchers are making things up for the research dollars, so they can keep practicing bad science. Climate Researchers aren't even that rich, scientists are upper middle class to lower end millionaires. I doubt that climate is very lucrative.

I just want to know why Canadian government scientists are being silenced, especially on climate. Also, if these scientists are doing such bad science that they should not be able to present their findings, why is the government keeping such BAD and LYING science people?

 

[jrobertson1]

Never trust 'Peer Review'
Only go with reputable journals

http://www.sciencealert.com/two-sci...-a-study-by-maggie-simpson-and-edna-krabappel

 

[twizz]

Never trust 'Peer Review'
Only go with reputable journals

http://www.sciencealert.com/two-sci...-a-study-by-maggie-simpson-and-edna-krabappel

The fictional papers were not peer reviewed. Point proven.

 

[whitewaterguy]

http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/MKTNews/Global-Warming-climate-change/2014/11/17/id/607827/

 

[Frankfooter]

Exactly. Basically a conspiracy theory claim that these researchers are making things up for the research dollars, so they can keep practicing bad science. Climate Researchers aren't even that rich, scientists are upper middle class to lower end millionaires. I doubt that climate is very lucrative.

I just want to know why Canadian government scientists are being silenced, especially on climate. Also, if these scientists are doing such bad science that they should not be able to present their findings, why is the government keeping such BAD and LYING science people?

Exactly, if researchers were in it for the money, how come Canadian researchers haven't changed tacks since Harper has been leading the country? Clearly all they would have to do is fake reports that say there is no climate change, that the tar sands are good for you and make an excellent desert topping and then wait for all those research dollars roll in to buy all the petri dishes they could ever desire.

Instead we have this.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/f...-to-restore-science-funding-freedom-1.2806571

 

[K Douglas]

Do we need to have so many separate threads on the same topic of climate change?

 

[katcalla]

So I googled "How many science peer reviewed articles proven wrong"

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-ca...-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!
http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2013/sep/17/scientific-studies-wrong

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

An Epidemic of False Claims
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/an-epidemic-of-false-claims/

Just a few I found.

Bullshit articles.

We need peer-reviewed articles about peer-reviewed articles