Maybe a tad foolish question, but i was wondering if there is a place or website that gathers scientific articles and has the option of letting people discuss/comment the findings?

It would be like a forum but with more productivity.

Peer-reviewed scientific nexuses like nature does this kind of peer-review, but I think they do it before publication. I was wondering how this is all organized and if i can join in on that.

The question arose in me while I was reading this article and thought how obviously faulty this logic seems to me, and i was looking for a comment section to see if others thought of the same thing. http://www.sciencedirect...le/pii/S0091305703001291

Not that I know of, though it would be an interesting idea (same as with a `paper of negatives` where they would post failed experiments and not just the ones that succeeded, that`d also be good to have).

But you can always write authors or the journal I guess. I have seen papers being detracted after a lot of comments came in critizing or pointing flaws, so...

What do you see as faulty logic in this particular paper you quoted?

Upon further analysis, there seems to be nothing wrong with the abstract and conclusion. That was stupid, the abstract is pretty straight-forward and honest. That is why I was looking for discussion and second-opinion. There needs to be someone to just talk some sense into me.

Perhaps it has to do with being unable to access the full article though, I can't afford 28 dollars to read just one article. Do you happen to know if there's a way for me as layman to read these or other articles? I am kind of intrigued and interested in further data, now.

https://www.dmt-nexus.me....aspx?g=posts&t=1441

check out if it hasn`t been posted already there, otherwise you can make a request, several people in the nexus have access to scientific journals and can attach the paper you ask for

Thanks, that is very kind of you. ^^

I've always imagined that the reddit model would make its way to science. It's just a matter of time now. The review process is the top of the pyramid, but it's time to let the whole pyramid have a better look for themselves, and make it work in our modern, information-consuming world.

Who wants to be a pioneer? There's probably good money to made if you are the ground floor of this one...

Free idea! I am giving it away without any strings.

It's a great idea.. I think we just have to figure out how to finance such a massive project in order to make it work.

Well, my ultimate goal is to be self-employed, connected to the sciences, but really only rely on the internet for my job requirements. I started a small mobile app business last year for quality-of-life projects, and I am open to take the business in any direction. My background is in scientific research.

To anyone reading this: If you're looking for a business partner to begin raising investment income to build a reddit-style review site for scientific papers, this is something I would consider diving right into. The time is now for an idea like this. Waiting 3 years means we miss the novelty window. PM me at any time if you read this, have a little related experience, and feel that you would be a strong team member. It takes a solid team to make projects like this work.

.. Not a foolish question at all Infectedstyle. In my particular field we have weekly seminars to discuss and critically engage with journal articles. I find these meetings to be a fantastic way to get to crux of what the author(s) is(are) saying. Although, I must add that these sessions are facilitated by experts in the particular field (a definite luxury). I'm not sure if there is a online-group/forum that facilitates discussion of set articles.

The word "review" in your post could possibly be misleading to some when mentioned in the context of peer-reviewed articles. Forming a group to thoroughly engage with an article is a fantastic idea, great way to tackle some of the finer details in certain papers (for me personally, reproducibility and sample preparation are key issues).



..Would have to be structured. Variation in the levels of understanding of the subject matter within the group could lead to unnecessary interruptions - effecting the flow of the session.

On a side note, it's fascinating to see how many erroneous (in some manner) articles have made it through the review process, often often leaving the authors extremely embarrassed (...incorrect or mislabeled figures, spelling and grammar etc being published)

There is also the option of emailing the author(s) directly with any questions you may have (maybe you would even like to access a particular paper written by said author(s) and don't have the necessary subscription).

Good topic. This came up in detail in the course of us putting together the Research issue of the Nexian zine, which should be ready to publish by around the end of the month. Dr. Strassman made some comments about underground research not exactly being "science" in the strictest sense, while Snozz wrote a long feature more or less stating the opposite. But this is a conversation we do need to have. I am particularly interested in performing anonymous studies about the subjective experience that are handled in the correct way. Once Nexian#2 is available for all to see I'm expecting this conversation to start really taking shape, and I'll try to make a point of bumping this thread at that time.

if validated methods/machines and controls are used, along with citations to other studies, it absolutely is pure science. you don't need a Political Hierarchy Degree nor goverment funding.

Strassman doesn't seem to be really aware of the work that is/has been done here and, I think, after reading the interview, has a somewhat distorted notion of what qualifies as "research" (he didn't use the word science iirc) that disregards a vast amount of even accepted above-ground research in various fields outside a clinical setting.

His dismissal of the work here as not research but basically just folks taking drugs is also sort of ironic considering he basically was just giving people DMT and recording what happened. I mean, a lot of the other bells and whistles involved there were a footnote to that pursuit, put in place mostly just to appease the institutions that unfortunately had him jumping through hoops in order to even do it.

Overall though it was a good interview and I'm very thankful he took the time to do it, even if a couple things stuck out as bizarre to me.

.. Well said. When conducting research there can be "good science" (ensuring reproducibility, using validated methods, citations etc) and "bad science" (poor application of necessary requirements/methodological procedures etc).. at the end of the day it's still considered to be "science". There has without doubt been some erroneous papers published, even after going through a review panel. These issues get me thinking about the role of a review panel.

Regarding so-called "underground research"; There should be a standard against which to validate the integrity of the research/results. Even in reputable journals there are inadequate papers that slip through the cracks. It might have something to do with particular in-house standards, human error or a combination of factors.

I believe a review panel (one that meets appropriate standards, allowing for a thorough and accurate evaluation of a submitted manuscript), in combination with standards plays a vital role in scientific research.

Once the interview with Dr. Strassman is published, it could be possible that some members have some valid replies or relevant questions.

..Interesting dicussion

The closest thing I can think of is PlosOne, which is an open source scientific journal. I know they have comments section and still manage to peer review stuff. I don't know what they look for in a reviewer though.

Best
~ND

Nice. That is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

Immediately glanced upon this; The Energy Expenditure of Stair Climbing One Step and Two Steps at a Time: Estimations from Measures of Heart Rate. I literally have been wanting to know this for a long time. Turns out that the answer is obvious. Heart rate is affected more when doing two steps thus you burn more calories. But it is nice to scientifically validate calorie burning as I walk up and down the stairs multiple times a day to burn some xtra calories. I just coulden't figure out if i want to do one step or two step. (one step still takes more time so you burn more calories). But funny science non-theless.

^ And this scientific procedure is easy to do at home. If you happen to have the apparatus. The guy who wrote the paper replied in the comments section and doesn't seem like a hardcore scientist to me. The subject at hand is indicative of that. Yet, this is definitely a form of constructive science.