Good luck- you might be waiting a while. Peer review takes months to years. At that point it's too late for preventative strategies for a pandemic.
Regardless, I stand by my original point. I prefer peer-reviewed analysis. The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system.
For example:
> Why would Floridas numbers start to decrease if not for herd immunity? We know they aren’t being more careful. Disney land reopened and there is a police sheriff who literally made a rule that police officers and people going into the station were not allowed to wear masks.
As I mentioned in another comment:
> For example, bars opened in early June in Florida. They closed on June 26th after cases started spiking.
To miss a policy change this significant in such a piece is pretty egregious if you are claiming that this is publishable quality.
I'll assume this was a good faith effort, but the piece has many flaws and draws conclusions that aren't well supported.
You can think of all the feedback here as equivalent to the feedback submitters get from their peer reviewers. IIUC, that's the point of the website?
It depends a lot on the area. In math it is common to have a looooooooooooong review time, sometimes years if you are unlucky. In sane areas the time is much shorter and you can start to get impatient after a month without updates.
This is what "peer-reviewed analysis" has given us:
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"
by John P. A. Ioannidis
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...
Ioannidis' paper was published in 2005, time enough for us to realize the currently "accepted" methodology does not work.
Hnrobert42 says>"The alternative is a free-for-all where junk claims equal weight with legitimate science. Such a system is usually supported by folks whose work can’t make it through the traditional system."<
If Ioannidis is right (and I think he is), science isn't working out very well. We need to find another implementation of "science" that does work - what we have is a massive failure. Not only is it wrong, it is wrong and slow.
[Aside: some of the following is sarcasm]
I'm starting to believe that much of "science" is fraudulent, a massive, circus-like free-for-all for funding that has no justification other than the egos and livelihood of those embedded in it. We need a "Savanarola of Science" to burn some "scientists" at the stake and straighten the path of "science" just as religion was cleansed in Renaissance Florence:
Girolamo Savonarola
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_Savonarola
[Aside aside: probably wouldn't solve the problem but likely would do much good by culling out (mostly) from the bottom 50%. Maybe rinse, repeat...]