Re:Guillain-Barré Syndrome After Covid-19 Vaccination in US ...
by alexvoda on Saturday December 11, 2021 @12:02PM
(#29522351)
While true that reproducibility is the truly useful filter, peer review is still a valid pre-filter.
Do you believe peer review suffers from both false positives and false negatives (type I and II errors, don't remember which is which)?
As a side note, we need better terminology than type I and II or false positive/negative. Type I and II is completely opaque to meaning. False positive and negative is unclear because sometimes the negative is desirable and othertimes the positive is desirable.
Maybe RDO and AUO: rejected desirable option and accepted undesirable option.
>I can write a whole paper about how the vaccine turns your skin magnetic and upload it to medRxiv, but that doesn't mean much.
Yes you could, and, provided you wrote it in such a way that people didn't think it was a joke, you would get published in Nature for sure. Only later when people try to reproduce your work would they realize you are a fraud, and depending on what country you work in, different disciplinary action might be taken (though probably not).