Talk:Peer review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Peer review is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 15, 2004.


A reviewer at the American National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant proposal.

Really? Is this how the grant proposals are evaluated at the American National Institutes of Health? Indeed. --Дядько Ігор (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Romano, Aja. «Academic journals are facing a battle to weed out fake peer reviews». The Daily Dot, 21 agost 2015 --Hienafant (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The "Article" says; "peer review is common in decisions related to faculty advancement and tenure.[citation needed]". Here is the fatal flaw in Peer Review, which will be its downfall. Pieraccini wrote to get past peer review, not to communicate science. The founder of Wikipedia said he wanted "peer reviewed" literature. This ignored the Wikipedia entry on T S Kuhn, who discusses "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Obviously, Peer Review will block even the suggestion of paradigm change. - Ivor Catt 28 July 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC) (talk) I concur. I have attempted to have a paper reviewed that provided a simple and comprehensive solution to a large group of scientific mysteries. I did not expect it to succeed because it would invalidate numerous preposterous theories that are proposed by recognized scientists. Moreover, If the thesis of my paper is correct, I have no 'peers'.

I have had a true copy notarized by a local courthouse so that I can claim priority for the concept when it eventually surfaces and so I can present evidence of submission to respected societies of peers. I recommend this process to others who wish to claim authorship of their ideas. The Notary's/Justice of the Peace's signature establishes the date the copy was made. I also intend to donate a copy to my local library, and register it with our national archives, thereby publishing it.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peer review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bible is first and most peer-reviewed journal of documents[edit]

The process used by the early Christian church leaders in the life of the new church established the concept of peer review, later adopted by early church-related academic institutions. This well-documented effort is likely the basis of all peer review. Peer review of the Bible continues through commentators and skeptics. This is the essential process of peer review. ( (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Dr. Dwight B. Reimer,, Jan 24, 2016)

That sounds like an odd thing to say. But if it is well documented, please link to some of the documentation William M. Connolley (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Bible criticism is definitely very important to the development of literary criticism, but it has no clear connection to peer review. The Bible is not a "journal," and the texts of the Bible -- today, at least -- are not viewed as potential journal articles to be reviewed by "peers." A peer reviewer's job is to recommend whether or not a publishing body should accept a particular submission for publication and, when possible, to suggest revisions that would strengthen the argument of the submission. "Canon formation" works well as a term for talking about what the early church did, but "peer review" doesn't work as well. Jk180 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)