Latest paper on wild salmon/lice/aquaculture interaction
Thu Jul 04, 2013 6:42 pm
Re: Latest paper on wild salmon/lice/aquaculture interaction
Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:00 am
Is that a joke? Six pages long two of which are references.
Looks like something a student would knock out in a few hours.
Looks like something a student would knock out in a few hours.
Re: Latest paper on wild salmon/lice/aquaculture interaction
Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:09 pm
Aidan wrote:Is that a joke? Six pages long two of which are references.
Looks like something a student would knock out in a few hours.
I'd be sceptical of the conclusions drawn but from personal experience I can tell you it would take a lot longer than a few hours! Length of the article isn't indicative of quality.
Re: Latest paper on wild salmon/lice/aquaculture interaction
Fri Jul 05, 2013 3:43 pm
Sweetwrasse wrote:Aidan wrote:Is that a joke? Six pages long two of which are references.
Looks like something a student would knock out in a few hours.
I'd be sceptical of the conclusions drawn but from personal experience I can tell you it would take a lot longer than a few hours! Length of the article isn't indicative of quality.
Agreed.Student comment was ott
.Is it fair to say that studies like this, with an agenda driven bias can easily cherrypick bits from other studies to produce the desired findings? Does a study like this ever get peer reviewed?
Its hard to know what to believe anymore when scientists can produce studies with wildly different findings on the same subject.
Re: Latest paper on wild salmon/lice/aquaculture interaction
Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:26 pm
Sadly this can definitely be true Aidan.
Most articles for publication in scientific journals would be peer-reviewed by 2-3 scientists in that particular field and then further reviewed by the editors. Any publication worth its salt would do this on a confidential basis so the authors shouldn't know who is reviewing their work, of course if it's a small field of research then you can give a good guess as to who that might be!
At least this article is now in the public domain where it can be critiqued on its merits/faults. The unprocessed data or experimental methods might tell a different story? You'd have to do a lot of reading and researching to form a clear picture on a lot of scientific topics and this one is no different.
As I said, I'd be sceptical about these findings but of course that's one of the central pillars of good science! The findings don't seem to fit with evidence on the ground.
Most articles for publication in scientific journals would be peer-reviewed by 2-3 scientists in that particular field and then further reviewed by the editors. Any publication worth its salt would do this on a confidential basis so the authors shouldn't know who is reviewing their work, of course if it's a small field of research then you can give a good guess as to who that might be!
At least this article is now in the public domain where it can be critiqued on its merits/faults. The unprocessed data or experimental methods might tell a different story? You'd have to do a lot of reading and researching to form a clear picture on a lot of scientific topics and this one is no different.
As I said, I'd be sceptical about these findings but of course that's one of the central pillars of good science! The findings don't seem to fit with evidence on the ground.
Aidan wrote: Is it fair to say that studies like this, with an agenda driven bias can easily cherrypick bits from other studies to produce the desired findings? Does a study like this ever get peer reviewed?
Its hard to know what to believe anymore when scientists can produce studies with wildly different findings on the same subject.