what is the process by which scientists evaluate somebodys work?????

Answer 1

its called peer review

Answer 2

The alleged criteria is adherence to scientific method, which includes accurate data gathering, repeatability, transperency of methodology, and non-misleading statistics. Other things that are typically taken into account are the reputation of the lab and/or researchers, the supposed coherency between the work and previously published results, the ability of the results to be fit into current theory, political issues (how "popular" a given theory or researcher is), competition with one's own theories, quality of the writing, proper "respect" (if the work sites the "authorities").

Consider this study: Researchers were (secretly) pre-selected for having expressed opinions either for or against the existence of extraterrestrial life. Then each researcher was presented with an identical study analyzing evidence supporting the E.T. life. Those scientists who had a pre-existing belief in that theory said that the study was well done, that the data was believable, that the statistics and methdology were sound, etc. Researchers who were known to be opposed to the belief in the existinence of E.T. consistently said the statistics were misleading, the data was inconsistent or unbelievable, the methodology was flawed, etc. In other words, their pre-existing beliefs determined how good the said the "science" was.

For more info, research info about Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science.

Answer 3

Peer review.

Answer 4

it's called review. you send your paper or book to peers and they look it over

Answer 5

peer review

Answer 6

The scientific method can be followed to try to duplicate the results.