All these research papers that get printed in journals.

[Mahaguru]

Do other researchers validate the research by going through the bibliography and seeing how the writer came to the conclusions she or he did?

 

[xSauronx]

if its a peer-reviewed journal, thats the idea.

 

[Mahaguru]

Originally posted by: xSauronx
if its a peer-reviewed journal, thats the idea.

Validating the research must be harder than doing the actual research. I can't imagine tracking down all the other books and journals the writer referenced.

 

[TecHNooB]

Research papers should be reviewed beforehand, but this is not always the case. The general answer is yes.

 

[dennilfloss]

Yes. I have published in peer-reviewed journals and I've been a reviewer myself.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Mahaguru

Originally posted by: xSauronx
if its a peer-reviewed journal, thats the idea.

Validating the research must be harder than doing the actual research. I can't imagine tracking down all the other books and journals the writer referenced.

uh....I guess you don't understand the process of peer review.

basically, those that review the papers are more often than not the authors of the studies used in the article. Peer review, of course, is not intended to check the sources. It's pointless as they have already been published, and accepted.

The point of peer review is to validate the research methods used: if they are appropriate for the study/studies in the article, if they were properly implemented, and if the conclusions reached were accurate to the results. It can be a long process, often articles come back if the reviewers want to see additional tests performed.

Reviewers are not checking over the investigator's work to see if they "plaigarized" or simply fabricated their sources much like your 7th grade English teacher did with your book reports. Totally different concept.

EDIT: of course I'm thinking about the science field here...but I think the same idea applies in other areas, such as literary journals. Peers are peers, right? They are all of the same field, familiar with the same texts. Reviewers for some professor's article on Joyce would be very well versed in Joyce themselves, as well as all texts related to Joyce. Again, these reviewers will most likely find their own work in the bibliography. You wouldn't have Faulkner experts as the primary reviewers. This means that they wouldn't need to check the bibliography text to by text, b/c they already know, and are likely very well-versed with 98% of the texts cited.

Of course, reviewers will have their own opinions about how a text should be interpreted, and may disagree with the author's take on other texts. This isn't usually a problem, but these folks do develop their own inter-community rivalries from time to time and get huffy around their chief detractors...

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Mahaguru

Originally posted by: xSauronx
if its a peer-reviewed journal, thats the idea.

Validating the research must be harder than doing the actual research. I can't imagine tracking down all the other books and journals the writer referenced.

Generally, if you're up to date in your field (and if you're not, reviewing papers is one way to do it), you already have read those papers and remember what they say. Of course, not all reviewers are chosen solely on merit. If you are friends or a colleague of a journal editor, then chances are you'll get asked more often. There are also politics in play at times and whether you have the free time necessary at that precise moment to review the paper fast enough to not impede publication is also a concern for the editor.

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: zinfamous


Reviewers are not checking over the investigator's work to see if they "plaigarized" or simply fabricated their sources much like your 7th grade English teacher did with your book reports. Totally different concept.

Actually, in some fields like taxonomy and biological nomenclature (systematics), we do check for this as it is important for authorship of taxa. We also check for misspellings and pagination errors in the bibliography. There are some fields where the history of research is paramount and must be thoroughly ascertained and acknowledged.

Heck, we almost check if the author(s) was wearing clean underwear the day he/she/they submitted the article.

If you build a reputation as a thorough (some say ruthless) reviewer, you will be asked more often by journal editors.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Mahaguru
Do other researchers validate the research by going through the bibliography and seeing how the writer came to the conclusions she or he did?

bwhahaha... are you kidding me?

in today's day of "i need to fill pages so it'll look good so advertisers will give me $$$', journals will accept anything that sounds good.

then write a small correction if a year later the article is made up.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Mahaguru
Do other researchers validate the research by going through the bibliography and seeing how the writer came to the conclusions she or he did?

bwhahaha... are you kidding me?

in today's day of "i need to fill pages so it'll look good so advertisers will give me $$$', journals will accept anything that sounds good.

then write a small correction if a year later the article is made up.

You do know the difference between a magazine and a journal, don't you?