I agree with Randman. It seems to be fairly hypocritical to always be bemoaning the fact that ID, creation scientists, UFO abductess, etc... are always wanting their claims to be treated scientifically without making it into peer reviewed journals and then turning around and saying when they finally do, 'Well I don't see any peer review, where is it?'.
It is far better to do your own peer review. If the science is poor then explain why it is. If the references are deficient then explain in what way they are deficient.
Clearly a newly published papaer is going to have little peer review outside of the
in camera ones for the publishing journal. Even the most solid research may be barely cited, certainly not making it into many reviews, simply because it is in a highly specific field. What peer review other than ones own can you use in such cases.
If there are scientific problems with a paper such as van Lommel's then rather than demand peer reviews to substantiate it we can make our own scientific case against it, as many of us have been doing on this thread.
The other side of this of course is that it behoves Randman to do the same. When a scientific rationale, or a particular critique based on discrepancis between claims and the citations given to substatiate them, has been put forward to challenge a particular claim it is not enough to merely hide behind the authority of the publishing journal or the peer review process. The simple fact that a citation is given is by no means proof positive that that citation actually supports the claim with which it is associated.
As we skeptics must perform our own peer review of the paper to convince ourselves of its accuracy so should Randman be prepared to provide evidence beyond the original paper if he wishes to convince us of the scientific value of its claims.
A point in fact would the PBSW incident. The whole issue of how rigorous the peer review process was was something of a sideshow, and an irrelevant one compared to the absolute paucity of original or worthwhile science presented in the paper itself.
TTFN,
WK