so peer review is not selective? lol ok

from google, "the benefit of peer review"

Peer review is a very important process that authors have to go through before they are able to publish their research manuscript. The main purpose is to ensure that whatever comes out published is in its excellent form, i. e., virtually free of errors

is rejecting errors a selective process or not... and how do you decide if something is an error or not if you don't have a structure in place for assessment?

"There is not a hierarchy of upper ranking individuals you send your data to."

i never said that there was... wtf... where did you get the idea that i said that? i didn't post it

"And any "selection" you refer to is merit based."

so why did you claim that its not selective? and how can you be selective without having some type of structure for that assessment?

"They don't get sent to Einstein, Tesla or Edison"

but they are at the top of the hierarchy of respected scientists... which is what i said... i never said that they would be assessing reports

May I just ask, how old are you and what is your highest graduated education? Because it seems you don't have the faintest clue about science... which is no problem of course, you'd have to be scientifically schooled to really understand it, especially the inner workings of say peer reviews.

But it's silly to discuss these things if some participants in the discussion have no fundamental knowledge about the matter at hand. These discussions are going nowhere because you are communicating on completely different wavelengths...

i'm in my 20s and i have various certificates in chemistry, biology, physics, maths and geography with other subjects of course

a degree in a scientific field and i'm currently working on a post grad qualification in a scientific field

'Because it seems you don't have the faintest clue about science"

based on what?

lol 20s is equal to 21?

"A -21 year old male gamer"

"which is no problem of course, you'd have to be scientifically schooled to really understand it, especially the inner workings of say peer reviews."

tbh i've never engaged in the peer review process myself but regardless what have i said that is wrong about it? well in terms of publishing works, i've done various presentations obviously, but i suppose you're mostly referring to scientific journals or reports

Peer review has nothing to do with Einstein or Tesla or Edison. If we take the "pig example", none of those prople would ever have seen your paper, not because they're dead, but because evolution theory was not in their area of research. A paper will always be reviewed by scientists working in the same field (or at least knowledgable in the field). If you worked in a particularly obscure sidearm of science, it might well be that you could have a good idea who the reviewers are (because there might be only a handful of scientists working in that obscure area). In general, there are enough scientists available to completely hide the reviewers from the authors. Also in general, your worst enemy/ies will not be chosen as a peer reviewer.

Peer review works with the principle that a few recognised scientists knowledgable in the field (and with published papers in that field) preview your paper and decide on several questions, amongst them:

a) Did we see this before?

b) Does it present something new?

c) Is the paper logically sound?

d) Are there ambiguities which have to be dealt with?

At no time will the reviewers try to reproduce your experiment(s) or complain about grammar and syntax errors. Once the paper is published, it is up to interested scientists to reproduce your experiment/thought train. If your paper is obscure or revolutionary, it can take years until you are proven right or wrong.

A Yes to a) or a No to b) will instantly reject the paper, a No to c) or Yes to d) will return the paper to you for clarifications (and following resubmittance if you still dare).

"Peer review has nothing to do with Einstein or Tesla or Edison."

i didn't say it does... this is the wider context for what i said

""There is not an order or hierarchy in the scientific community."

what scientist does the general person think of instantly when asked? einstein right? or edison or maybe tesla... how many more can they name?

does that not show that there is a hierarchy where some scientists are more widely respected than others?"

i agree with everything else that you said... and i never said otherwise... i was arguing against the idea that peer review is not a selective process and has no structure associated with it

lol. That's good enough for me.