Still, it's what demarcates the boundary between "blog about your idea, show it to some smart folk" and "proper science". And we like clean demarcation lines, they allow us to categorize without actually investigating (which is infeasible if you want to get broad knowledge).
I'd say avoid "peer reviewed" papers like the plague if you want to find out what's actually "worth investigating" and " get a broad knowledge".
Instead, wait for 2-5 years to see what still floats from all the crap that has been published.
Better to read slightly behind the times, but solid, university guidebooks and published books that stood out, than to read the hot, but crappy, steam of published research.
Is waiting 5 years always an option? Is 5 years always enough to distinguish good from bad science? Then, you still use the "peer reviewed" filtering, just add "test of time" to the pipeline. Which is fine, as long as the topic is of level of importance to you at which being 5 years behind the trend is ok.
Unless you really mean that being peer reviewed is bad. I don't want to delve into that option...
If your goal, as stated above, is to get a "broad knowledge", then yes.
If you want to know recent research trends, or are doing research yourself, then no, go read current papers.
>Is 5 years always enough to distinguish good from bad science?
No, sometimes you have to wait even more. Just gave it as a delay period to counter the "read the peer reviewed papers" notion.
>Then, you still use the "peer reviewed" filtering, just add "test of time" to the pipeline.
No, I'm saying "forget the peer reviewed" in themselves, go for items that not only have stood the "test of time", but have also become succesful and well regarded books and/or university guides in their domain.
In essense, I'm saying that a journal's tiny "peer review" team is BS, the majority of the scientific community agreeing on matured material is better.
>Which is fine, as long as the topic is of level of importance to you at which being 5 years behind the trend is ok.
It's not a matter of "importance to you", it's what you want to use it for.
A subject could be extremely important to you as a study subject, and you could still avoid losing time with the current, unfiltered, papers as they come in.
It's only when you want to take advantage of recent research (e.g because you are a researcher yourself, or an implementor and needs a new solution etc) that you have to have the latest research -- which I think is different than "importance". Let's call it "business importance" if you wish...
> Is waiting 5 years always an option? Is 5 years always enough to distinguish good from bad science?
In the case of Relativity theory, it took 55 years for full validation of all its aspects. In principle, to assure solid science, one might say, "as long as it takes."
And a ton of "peer reviewed" articles are crap too.
Peer review aint what it used to be.