Audism

souggy said:
It already does. It's a self-checking system where one researcher is always checking the merit of another researcher's finding. So even if the individual is flawed, the field itself is not biased.
Click to expand...

Although this is social science you're talking about, I believe, but here's something to think about. A peer-reviewed process isn't always so "bias-free" or without problems.

"This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review. "

SpringerLink - Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 14, Number 3
 
kokonut said:
Although there's always a caveat.


News: New Test for Bias in Peer Review - Inside Higher Ed
Click to expand...
From that link:
"Oswald tested whether the Journal of Political Economy, published by the University of Chicago Press, favors Chicago authors. Using his system, he found the opposite: If there is bias, it is against Chicago authors, as they appear to be held to a higher standard than others, he writes."

From reading the article, biases exists, but not in a way that makes science gaining increasingly false knowledge. The article have a scholary and balanced perspective on biases, that confirms what Jillio have been saying. So not sure what your point with posting the link is.
 
kokonut said:
Although this is social science you're talking about, I believe, but here's something to think about. A peer-reviewed process isn't always so "bias-free" or without problems.

"This article reports the results of an anonymous survey of researchers at a government research institution concerning their perceptions about ethical problems with journal peer review. Incompetent review was the most common ethical problem reported by the respondents, with 61.8% (SE = 3.3%) claiming to have experienced this at some point during peer review. Bias (50.5%, SE = 3.4%) was the next most common problem. About 22.7% (SE = 2.8%) of respondents said that a reviewer had required them to include unnecessary references to his/her publication(s), 17.7% (SE = 2.6%) said that comments from reviewers had included personal attacks, and 9.6% (SE = 2.0%) stated that reviewers had delayed publication to publish a paper on the same topic. Two of the most serious violations of peer review ethics, breach of confidentiality (6.8%, SE = 1.7%) and using ideas, data, or methods without permission (5%, SE = 1.5%) were perceived less often than the other problems. We recommend that other investigators follow up on our exploratory research with additional studies on the ethics of peer review. "

SpringerLink - Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 14, Number 3
Click to expand...

:topic:

The topic is "Audism". This is something you have a great deal of personal experience with. You have much you could contribute to a thread devoted to "Audism" by way of example.
 
flip said:
From that link:
"Oswald tested whether the Journal of Political Economy, published by the University of Chicago Press, favors Chicago authors. Using his system, he found the opposite: If there is bias, it is against Chicago authors, as they appear to be held to a higher standard than others, he writes."

From reading the article, biases exists, but not in a way that makes science gaining increasingly false knowledge. The article have a scholary and balanced perspective on biases, that confirms what Jillio have been saying. So not sure what your point with posting the link is.
Click to expand...

Quite true.

And, the Journal of Political Economy has virtually nothing to do with psychological and educational research studies done in regard to deaf participants. The type of research that would be done for such a journal is of a completely different design and process of data gathering and analysis.

And now, back to audism.
 
flip said:
From that link:
"Oswald tested whether the Journal of Political Economy, published by the University of Chicago Press, favors Chicago authors. Using his system, he found the opposite: If there is bias, it is against Chicago authors, as they appear to be held to a higher standard than others, he writes."

From reading the article, biases exists, but not in a way that makes science gaining increasingly false knowledge. The article have a scholary and balanced perspective on biases, that confirms what Jillio have been saying. So not sure what your point with posting the link is.
Click to expand...

It connects to comment #243 about the peer-review process such as breach of confidentiality, using ideas, data, or methods without permission, personal attacks...etc. Sure it's about striving for a higher standard but I'm not naive to claim that the whole process is fool-proof nor without bias for whatever reasons such as the systematic and political pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line on climate change, for example.
 
Last edited:
kokonut said:
It connects to comment #243 about the peer-review process such as breach of confidentiality, using ideas, data, or methods without permission, personal attacks...etc. Sure it's about striving for a higher standard but I'm not naive to claim that the whole process is fool-proof nor without bias for whatever reasons such as the systematic and political pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line on climate change.
Click to expand...

Nope, it isn't connected in the least.
 
kokonut said:
It connects to comment #243 about the peer-review process such as breach of confidentiality, using ideas, data, or methods without permission, personal attacks...etc. Sure it's about striving for a higher standard but I'm not naive to claim that the whole process is fool-proof nor without bias for whatever reasons such as the systematic and political pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line on climate change.
Click to expand...
I'll respond to you only if you can connect erroneous(according to you) conclusion by climate researchers and the issue of audism. This to avoid a further derailing of this thread.
 
flip said:
I'll respond to you only if you can connect erroneous(according to you) conclusion by climate researchers and the issue of audism. This to avoid a further derailing of this thread.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of the peer review processes and used climate change as an example.

Here's some help for you.

Comments On The Peer-Review Journal Publication Process And Recommedations For Improvement | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

But I'll stop here since it's not related to this thread topic.
 
Mountain Man said:
Peer review is not a perfect system, granted, but it works quite well the vast majority of the time.
Click to expand...

I challange anyone to find me a system that is perfect.:cool2: The best we can hope for is to understand and use the one with the least amount of imperfection.
 
kokonut said:
That is an assumption and probably a well founded one, too...however.
Click to expand...

It is not an assumption, it is supported fact. Find me a system that can control for bias in research as well as the peer review system. This is a direct challange to you.
 
jillio said:
I challange anyone to find me a system that is perfect.:cool2: The best we can hope for is to understand and use the one with the least amount of imperfection.
Click to expand...

Agreed here. I found it a bit consending of a certain poster whose name I won't mention who blessed my "innocent heart" when she said it isn't always true. From what I know, academic and scientific research are likely to be least biased. People seem to think Science has the final answer to everything. Questions in science are never final.

I find CNN and BBC to be the least biased and I say this in an age of journalism that seems to be heavily slanted toward the lowest common demoniator. However, there are times when I wish CNN wouldn't bend over backward for the tea party crowd..
 
Back
Top