>> Watson and Crick's paper describing the structure of DNA wasn't peer reviewed.
> I'd point out that outliers exist but that was before peer review become so popular
what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...
>> if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results.
> Watson and Crick or the article?
yes
> For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at.
The first thing that the pre-print says, in bold at the top of the page, is that this is a non-peer-reviewed article and shouldn't be used for clinical practice. so commenting "it's not peer reviewed" doesn't add anything
> If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.
"try it yourself" is the bar for determining the validity of the results. A comment section is not going to be able to determine the validity. My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it. If you disagree with the results, you can point out a perceived flaw in the study or find papers which contradict the results so we can discuss something concrete
> what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...
And there's even more almost infinitely many examples that say peer review is a strong signal.
> yes
If you were including the former, you were making a very rude argument by implying that anyone that values peer review is rendered invalid by that example.
> My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it.
Telling people to shut up about peer review is bad for discussion.
I replied to the comment "Preprint not peer reviewed." which added nothing and arguably shuts down discussion.
My whole point is that it's ok to find research interesting and discuss it even though it's not peer reviewed yet.
> If you were including the former, you were making a very rude argument by implying that anyone that values peer review is rendered invalid by that example
No, I'm pointing out that not being peer reviewed is not automatically disqualifying and that the real way that or prove/disprove science is by replication attempts, not through peer review.
> And there's even more almost infinitely many examples that say peer review is a strong signal.
So you say, but if you think about it all papers in the ongoing replication crisis are peer reviewed. I know several peer reviewed papers which have inaccurate results, and in my experience having been on both sides of the peer review process I can tell you that it's pretty flawed since very few scientists are willing to invest a lot of their own time to do meticulous unpaid review of other people's work. Meanwhile, science progressed fine before peer review became standard in the 1970's.
> Telling people to shut up about peer review is bad for discussion.
I'll keep that in mind for the future but doesn't apply to anything I said. Maybe you should take a few minutes to read what I actually wrote instead of reacting emotionally
what outlier? I just picked a famous example, there are almost infinitely many examples to choose from...
>> if you think they're wrong, try it for yourself and publish the results. > Watson and Crick or the article?
yes
> For a balanced discussion of the article, it's reasonable to point out a lack of peer review to give context to what stage this is at.
The first thing that the pre-print says, in bold at the top of the page, is that this is a non-peer-reviewed article and shouldn't be used for clinical practice. so commenting "it's not peer reviewed" doesn't add anything
> If "try it yourself" is the bar then I guess nobody comments? That doesn't seem like a good way to learn anything.
"try it yourself" is the bar for determining the validity of the results. A comment section is not going to be able to determine the validity. My whole point is that it's worth discussing the article without waiting for a final peer-reviewed version of it. If you disagree with the results, you can point out a perceived flaw in the study or find papers which contradict the results so we can discuss something concrete