Peer Review

[TPaine7]

30. I addressed your strongest points; I ignored your irrelevant points.

But just to humor you:

And the criminology/medicine thing is just silly. Labeling of certain research areas "criminology" an not "medicine" is a very transparent attempt to distract from the fact that the bulk of the research -- both by criminologists and by epidemiologists -- doesn't go the way the NRA wants it to.

See my prior post.

The real question not whether "doctors should be doing criminology", but rather what set of techniques are most useful for investigating gun violence. And epidemiologists, who have extensive experience conducting various types of observational studies, examining statistical data, etc., without at doubt bring a lot of important tools to the table.

I am well aware of interdisciplinary efforts. They have nothing to do with the OP. Whether epidemiologist are good at statistics and at observational studies of diseases is not relevant to the OP.

... Most mainstream criminologists have been receptive towards the infusion of new techniques and ideas from the public health community.

As well they should be. But since this is beside the point of the OP, I ignored it.

In fact, there are many examples of successful collaborations between the public health and criminology communities,

It would surprise me if there weren't. This is still beside the point.

...and there are interdisciplinary departments and graduate programs, so many scholars in the field now have graduate training in both criminology and public health.

You are explaining to me things I know quite well. The OP is not about collaborations between criminologists and doctors or studies by doctors who have PhD's or even graduate training in criminology.

Let's say a physicist, a mechanical engineer, an electrical engineer, a chemist and a designer collaborate with a team of cardiologists to make a revolutionary artificial heart. That should not surprise anyone. The problem would arise if mechanical engineers authored dozens of cardiology studies and peer reviewed them in Machine Design. With no cardiologist involvement.

The OP is asking about the validity of studies by people with qualifications like "head of the nursing department", "professor of surgery" and "cartographer" with no criminologist, economist, or even psychologist in sight.

Of course if there is a discovery in chemistry, physics, martial arts, music theory or even game theory that is useful for healing heart patients, cardiologists should take full advantage of it. Of course they can, should and even must collaborate with practitioners in those fields to advance the state of patient care. I have no issue with that and have never hinted that I did.

Will you ignore it again, and repeat the same silly rant about how DOCTORS are different from CRIMINOLOGISTS and only CRIMINOLOGISTS are qualified to research gun violence?

I have never said that only criminologist can research gun violence. For example, I fully admit that there are certain aspects of gun violence that criminologists are incompetent to address. Trauma surgeons and the like are uniquely qualified to research gunshot wounds and the best ways to treat them. If you were in the emergency room with a gunshot wound, I am willing to bet you would insist that a criminologist not treat you. You would insist on the right person for the job, with a "silly rant" remarkably like mine, only backwards.

More later, I have to do something else.