CRIMINAL JUSTICE FORENSICS

Do you see value in the peer review process, as outlined in Chapter 1 of your text?

Between the New England Journal of Medicine, your local newspaper, and a television news report, which do you believe is a more credible source? Why?

Explain your method of evaluation in determining if a source is reliable.

This Assignment above is already complete your next assignment is to:

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts. You Must Provide Feedback on what they have written.

“Each response should be a minimum of 200 words and should include your thoughts associated with their posted information.

Additionally, you are to contribute to the discussion by adding support or constructive alternatives to your classmates’ posts. “

First Student Response from Keisha Hinton

I do see great value in the peer review process. In my opinion, this is the most academic and credible of ways of reporting information. If something is to be reported as fact and digested by the community as such, there should be a rigorous process in place for identifying flaws in logic, methodology, or reporting. This is extremely valuable given how easily content can be published nowadays. Hundreds and thousands of bloggers all over the world are instantly able to post their thoughts and musings on the internet for the rest of the world to see. This easy publication ability creates the reality that for the average internet user, it is often difficult to tell what is true and what is biased due to opinion. The peer review process, as such, is a great tool for ensuring that the information reported is quality and is reported in an unbiased way. (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2013)

Between the options provided, I believe the New England Journal of Medicine to be a more reliable source. This is because the journal goes through a peer review process which takes some of the best academic minds and allows them to scrutinize what goes into the journal before it's published. This is a very valuable tool, for me personally.

Even before I did this week's readings in this class, I've known on some level how valuable peer review is. To determine if a source is credible, I first see if it's peer reviewed. If it is not, I think about the bias that may have affected the writer's fact-reporting. I also think about if I know anything about the source to make in not credible. For instance, Fox News is traditionally right wing, while MSNBC is traditionally left. These two news agencies have allowed their political affiliations to largely skew their reporting of facts and their news stories. Thus, I'm not readily convinced about something I see on these news channels, or websites.

References:

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Second Student Response from Frank Rameriz

I see the value of the peer review process as it pertains to the field of science. Science is based on tangible quantifiable properties which is exact. Many new discoveries are achieved based upon the discoveries of years past. If the discovery or process is not true, then the basis is not real and there is no basis. In order to strive forward consistency of excellence must be maintained. Certain publishers go the extra length to maintain the professional reputation which they achieve by subjecting themselves to peer reviews.

A little more of what peer reviewing actually means; scientific experts in the like fields check research findings for legitimacy and originality, this is called peer reviewing. Scientific journals draw on a large pool of suitable experts to scrutinize papers before deciding whether to publish them. This practice is often found in such reputable printed materials like the New England Journal of Medicine or National Geographic. “They have much lower acceptance rates, probably well under 1%. Because they are so selective, the peer review of papers submitted to those journals is considered more rigorous than the average” (Gaensslen & Larsen, 2013).

These journals base their reputation and earnings off their good name, not stories. The consistency of their valid reporting is worth everything to them in the eyes of science, without clear solid truthful and reproducible facts, all is for not.

News is subjective and is not the same as it as seems to everyone. This is quite evident with the publication like the National Inquirer or People magazine. Some political or agenda based magazines are also biased or less than credible due to their individual interests.

References:

Gaensslen, R.E., & Larsen, K. (2013). Introductory forensic science. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.