Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

johnkingeu t1_je1nboj wrote

Reply to comment by spsheridan in Fast radio burst linked with gravitational waves for the first time by spsheridan

Peer review really just means it passes basic sense checks by a couple of peers, it isn’t necessarily an exhaustive process. It’s pretty common for papers to get refuted later, in the much more exhaustive long term peer review process that is science, in which a whole scientific community picks the paper apart over time. Unfortunately this can make it difficult for people outside the field to know which papers are currently considered to be authoritative and which aren’t, publication in a top ranked peer reviewed journal means it’s worthy of consideration but could still be completely wrong.

13

brian9000 t1_je1oyi6 wrote

One example is the recent “room temperature superconductor” hullabaloo that happened over at /r/physics

5

DarkElation t1_je384t0 wrote

This is hilarious to me because “peer reviewed” became some kind of messianic gatekeeper of the truth during the pandemic. Then it was used as a bludgeon to censor people saying what you just said three years ago.

I’m still banned from a sub for linking the cdc’s vaccine page and how it doesn’t prevent transmission.

Sorry to go there but your comment really struck me.

2