Analysis: Michael Mann’s Peer Review Dogma
Peer-reviewed literature is littered with muck. A large proportion of what gets published is, in fact, highly dubious. Academics like Mann desperately insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But this isn’t the case. Explore any one of the three articles below to find out why in depressing detail. Better yet, read all of them and then try to take Mann’s latest paper seriously:
- A tragedy of errors: Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix(Feb. 2016, Nature)
- Most Scientific Findings Are Wrong or Useless (Aug. 2016, Reason)
- Excel Created Major Typos in 20 Percent of Scientific Papers on Genes (Aug. 2106, Slate)
Most of all, don’t miss Don Aitkin’s critique of Mann’s paper here.
