Also: how do you identify a work as peer reviewed?

  • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Sure. I don’t want to argue. I took it as that, since it was a direct reply to a specific question. And i think my short outline of what the word means is mostly correct.

    • Jarix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      No one said it wasn’t correct… Why did you even bring that up?!? You accused the person you first replied to it, describing a process that isn’t the peer review process, skipping that they used the process they described only on something that is already peer reviewed…

      I was(perhaps a poor attempt) trying to be a bit silly but pointing out a mistake you made accusing them of something they didnt do. But you just dont want to let it go and keep drilling deeper. Its quite surprising to me you can’t just say, oh whoops, and carry on

      • hendrik@palaver.p3x.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        That is because the first 4 or so words are about the topic. And then is a long paragraph describing something else. And I didn’t do any accusations. I pointed out that those several sentences are about reproducibility and not to be mistaken for the topic at hand. And they are. So I don’t get it, I don’t think I made any whoopsie. I just pointed out that we’re now talking about a different topic and reproducibility isn’t review. Which is true… Seems to me everyone is right? I don’t see any factual disagreement here. And if my “accusation” is saying they talked about reproducibility… That’s kind of what happened?!