What is the goal of the "peer-review process?" How is it different in science and in religion?

Answer 1

Peer-review implies that a paper produced by an academic is not accepted by the broader academic community, until it has been examined, debated and vetted for apporval by a simialrly qualified group of expert (usually specialist) scholars.

These scholars should themselves, already have published many peer-reivewed papers, to demonstrate their qualification to judge their collegial 'peers.'

The peer-review process prevents ideas, which have not been seriously debated, from becoming accepted as fact.

The peer-review process began with schools of philosophy at Universities during the Middle Ages.

An individual achieved the degree of Master or Doctor by writing an original thesis, and then submitting it to a peer-review of internal and external examiners.

The degree candidate later had to defend their thesis before a panel of interrogating peers, as well. This degree vetting process, along with research paper vetting peer-review, is almost identical for both religion and science.

The biggest difference is the scientific reliance upon quantitative data, while the religious ans humantities rely more upon subjective reason.

Answer 2

Peer overview facilitates make certain that sound medical procedures are used and actual looking conclusions in accordance with obtainable documents are made in a paper. often, the editor of a medical magazine will deliver all submitted articles out to 3 diverse scientists that artwork in a similar or appropriate field, for overview. especially circumstances papers get became down thoroughly, often they get sent returned for some modification or possibly some extra experiments, and especially circumstances they are usual as is. especially circumstances the reviewers will additionally run some experiments themselves, surprisingly in terms of a few relatively unpredicted outcomes (like the chilly fusion fiasco - many labs tried to repeat the experiments and choose what become happening). the final public just about in no way reads the unique, peer-reviewed journals.

Answer 3

Contrary to what some believe, you can not "just make up anything" with respect to God in Christianity. That is why you have a Bible. Whenever someone comes up with some new "revelation" I can check it against the Bible. God says he is not the author or confusion. You will not find contradicting principles.

While I am a science major myself, peer-review can sometimes become political. For example, look at the scientific conflicting views over Global Warming.

This non-question has an obvious anti-religious slant to it.

Answer 4

In the scientific community, peer review applies to manuscripts for initial findings as well as grant applications. What this means is that scientists in the same research area review your manuscript/grant to see if the results/hypothesis is sound based upon the methods you use and your preliminary results. If they are not, they will reject the manuscript or grant. If they are sound, the results will be reproducible so that the scientist can continue their studies and other scientists can build upon it. What this ultimately means is that science is reliable because those who are most able to judge accuracy are the ones reviewing the methods. I know of no such process for religion.

Answer 5

Well, in religion, anything (you just kind of make up) is possible with God. So peer-review is more of an interpretation of special revelation through personal revelation.

In science is where people look at each other's work and evaluate it for academic and scientific rigor.