b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 1258435 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post this is what wiki says
but she's probably taken down the source article
 (I helped save b3ta! colmcq2, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 16:59, , Reply)
This is a normal post Just because she likes have her good looks peer reviewed
Does not mean that's she's been peer reviewed.

And I'm sorry for her looks, but peer reviewing is usually single or double blind.

This story reminds me about an argument about aluminium present in food I had with my sister with my sister.
Because she "read about it on internet" and "they are trying to poison her children".
I pointed out that Al is the 3rd most present element on earth
and pretty lame at anything in it's normal oxidised form.
Furthermore, if she was SO worried about Al, then she better watch out for the big C.
A far rarer element at number 15.
(But eliminating that from her food would be problematic, she is, after all, a carbon based life-form).
Blablabla...
This is basic 16year old, smoking fags in the back of science class, knowledge FFS!

Yet these dumb asses (my sister included) don't bat an eye about VERY bad stuff used in food processing:
Stuff like "organics", sounds all green and full of fields?
Well acetone is one of the main ones,
is verified toxic as hell
(eats your brain and the brain of your unborn)...

Yet not a peep from the "more followers than synapses brigade".


Edit: where's the new music bitch?
 (smellysamlyingcable Seaman on, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 17:35, , Reply)
This is a normal post Peer review is exactly what it says it is.
double/single Blind is something else entirely.
 (I helped save b3ta! Prufrock Lucifer, son of the morning!, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 18:21, , Reply)
This is a normal post And the peers of whackjob naturopaths are...
...more whackjob naturopaths I'm guessing
 (I helped save b3ta! LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 18:36, , Reply)
This is a normal post I'm no expert...
But in the IEEE, you don't know who is reviewing your paper...
The reviewers must send their questions to the editor who acts as an interface.
(And as a bullshit detector.)
I assumed that it was the same for all "real" science.
 (smellysamlyingcable Seaman on, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 18:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post I don't know how this goes in most fields,
but in the one I was in it's often the case that people can't help but recognize reviewers or authors by the content of their writing/comments. I guess this might be the case in relatively small fields or in papers with a very narrow scope.

Friends of mine would get peer reviews back from editors and be like, "Oh, great, they asked Phil to review another one of my papers." :)
 (I helped save b3ta! the prick of misery pierced my foot on a spiiiike on, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 19:19, , Reply)
This is a normal post I was listening to this podcast:
www.theamphour.com/228-an-interview-with-shahriar-from-the-signal-path-quisquous-quivering-quadripole/

And you get the impression that with his kind of subject:
Where what I consider borderline insane high frequency AC, he considers as DC...
And the most basic piece of kit is tailor made and costs half a million...
Then, the number of people in your field probably number less than a 100.
Probably more in the 10/20 mark.

So unless an editor reformats the questions, it's to easy to guess who wrote them!
Just as you said.
 (smellysamlyingcable Seaman on, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 19:39, , Reply)
This is a normal post peer review is sometimes conducted in a way that's called blind or double blind
presumably to prevent things like a grudge effect or people favoring their colleagues.

It's not the same as blind/double blind experiments, but it's done to avoid some other kinds of bias.
 (I helped save b3ta! the prick of misery pierced my foot on a spiiiike on, Fri 19 Dec 2014, 19:29, , Reply)