I wish that the same rigorous peer review took place in the professions as does in academia. There is instead a code of omerta when it comes to the incompetent physician or attorney.
I hear you. The best we have is medical and legal academia and the studies and analyses that are themselves peer-reviewed.
A problem is the number of publications, including those from academia that are NOT peer reviewed.
That’s not how peer reviewed works and why in engineering certain things work - my dad has worked for 40+ years in engineering research and “real world” applications and he could tell many stories how the peer review system isn’t by far not always working.
I hope this is irony - drug discovery and medical field is my own work area and to say the studies and analyses work (especially in academia) couldn’t be more wrong. I would guess at least 50-70% of the research articles in these fields created in academia (and peer reviewed) can’t be reproduced (and many PI are more than aware of the problems).
Finite element analysis very quickly become the overwhelming best practice very fast through the improvements of the peer review process. An idea I had back in the early 90s was improved by peer review and got enough notice that you can now see it (and have for nearly a decade) in the US Navy fleet. Carbon fiber production at national labs with peer review in academia has led to everything from lighter aircraft to America’s Cup yachts to Corvettes. FACA organizations use inherent peer review to advise US decision makers without conflict with anti-trust.
Even pharma notorious for IP and trade secrets have benefited from peer review on efficacy and safety studies.
I’m sorry your experience with peer review has been so poor. It certainly is the best we have. I call it good.
Most developments and improvements in engineering aren’t effected by peer reviewing process as they become commercialized long before they get published anywhere for IP reasons and even improvements don’t get impacted by peer reviewing as again IP coverage is critical. There are for example many products developed in the r&d groups which bring revenues in the 100+ millions but have never been published anywhere.
And you couldn’t be more wrong wrt efficacy and safety studies in drug discovery- if you look at the whole drug discovery and development process from target ID to phase 4 the part which really hasn’t seen any impact by peer review are efficacy and safety studies as this data is always kept in secret and even what is published is often not even close to complete and so useless for analysis. Any progress over the last 30-40 years in this field was more or less enforced by the FDA fighting an uphill battle against industry. It is telling to see the current discussion around Aduhelm and particular current and future efficacy and safety data (which most likeky will nevef be peer reviewed)
Since our experiences are so different and not food related I suggest we defer until such time as peer review of NCHFP or similar pops up. Perhaps NEJM on the benefits or lack thereof of plant-based diets.
Mod note: can we please bring the topic back to food? Thanks.