What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

[Weatherman2020]

Oh sorry. Unlike in my early days, peer review is not required anymore.

So put your faith in science!


Online sleuths have discovered what they suspect is a paper mill that has produced more than 400 scientific papers with potentially fabricated images. Some journals are now investigating the papers.

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist–turned–research integrity expert based in San Francisco, along with other “forensic detectives,” identified the potentially problematic papers, which they think came from a single source. They say the papers contain western blot images—used in molecular biology to visualize the presence of proteins—that contain remarkably similar background patterns and unusually neat bands lacking smears, stains, or dots, which often appear in such images.

“We think that these western blots are not real,” says Bik, who wrote about the case on her blog on 21 February. “Most of them have a very similar layout so we realized these are all coming from the same stable.”

A single ‘paper mill’ appears to have churned out 400 papers, sleuths find | Science | AAAS

 

[Sunsettommy]

Retraction Watch is a blog covering published papers being withdrawn for various reason.

Retraction Watch

 

[ReinyDays]

Leave it a liberal to want to regulate scientific publishing ...

 

[mamooth]

The OP's premise here is "There's a small problem in a little bit science here, a problem that science discovered, therefore we should use that as an excuse to ignore any science that gives results which we find personally inconvenient."

Obviously, that's not logical.

Not surprisingly, it's almost always conservatives attacking science this way. Liberals adjust their beliefs to align with reality and science, so liberals feel no need to attack science.

 

[Blackrook]

Liberals believe in science and conservatives don't?

I've heard that line before.

But what is science? Mostly guesswork and conjecture.

There was a dinosaur display in a museum where a giant bone was put on the head because the scientists thought it was a horn.

But then, a few more bones came in, and the scientists changed their mind and decided that bone was a claw.

Scientists used to claim that there was definitely life on Mars.

Now they don't.

Pluto was a planet.

Now it isn't.

 

[ReinyDays]

The system this replaced was having your paper read into the minutes of the Royal Society ... which at the time wasn't exactly the most free flowing environment for new ideas ... Darwin had to publish The Origin of Species himself ...

"Paper mills" serve graduate students ... maybe greedy universities should limit this ... each journal sets their own peer review standards, let the reader judge the quality on their own ... they're written for scientists, not you and me ...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Leave it a liberal to want to regulate scientific publishing ...

Leave it to a Leftard to think bullshit is science and peer review is regulation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The OP's premise here is "There's a small problem in a little bit science here, a problem that science discovered, therefore we should use that as an excuse to ignore any science that gives results which we find personally inconvenient."

Obviously, that's not logical.

Not surprisingly, it's almost always conservatives attacking science this way. Liberals adjust their beliefs to align with reality and science, so liberals feel no need to attack science.

Shitforbrains thinks 400 bullshit papers passed off as science is a minor problem.

Proof the Left hate science.

 

[CWayne]

The OP's premise here is "There's a small problem in a little bit science here, a problem that science discovered, therefore we should use that as an excuse to ignore any science that gives results which we find personally inconvenient."

Obviously, that's not logical.

Not surprisingly, it's almost always conservatives attacking science this way. Liberals adjust their beliefs to align with reality and science, so liberals feel no need to attack science.

I find I have to agree.

The fact that global warming isn't the threat they say it is, is personally inconvenient to you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The fact that global warming isn't the threat they say it is

Oh really? And who are "they"?

 

[Weatherman2020]

The OP's premise here is "There's a small problem in a little bit science here, a problem that science discovered, therefore we should use that as an excuse to ignore any science that gives results which we find personally inconvenient."

Obviously, that's not logical.

Not surprisingly, it's almost always conservatives attacking science this way. Liberals adjust their beliefs to align with reality and science, so liberals feel no need to attack science.

Small? You can’t present one thing without doctored science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can’t present one thing without doctored science.

Per your review, of course.

"Peer review" contains the word "peer" for a reason. No, an uneducated slob like you is not a "peer" to a career research scientist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You can’t present one thing without doctored science.

Per your review, of course.

"Peer review" contains the word "peer" for a reason. No, an uneducated slob like you is not a "peer" to a career research scientist.

Your babbling is hysterical.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP's premise here is "There's a small problem in a little bit science here, a problem that science discovered, therefore we should use that as an excuse to ignore any science that gives results which we find personally inconvenient."

Obviously, that's not logical.

Not surprisingly, it's almost always conservatives attacking science this way. Liberals adjust their beliefs to align with reality and science, so liberals feel no need to attack science.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.

An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.

In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.

Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and “possibly other authors at this institution.”

After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.

The statement does not explain how something like this happens. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...etracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/



This is the part where you say...."duhhhhhhhhh...neva mind....."

 

[CWayne]

The fact that global warming isn't the threat they say it is

Oh really? And who are "they"?

The hair-on-fire losers who have been predicting doomsday global catastrophe for 40 years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The hair-on-fire losers who have been predicting doomsday global catastrophe for 40 years.

Ah, so you're not speaking about the scientists at all. Gotcha. I agree, it is best to defer to the scientific community's warnings, not those of non-scientist alarmists.

 

[CWayne]

The hair-on-fire losers who have been predicting doomsday global catastrophe for 40 years.

Ah, so you're not speaking about the scientists at all. Gotcha. I agree, it is best to defer to the scientific community's warnings, not those of non-scientist alarmists.

LOL

God your a liar. It was the scientist who was making the dire warnings.

Oh, btw. Your peer-review stance was destroyed by PC. There have been a number of peer review scandals over the years. Go have a look if you really are interested in the truth.

If you won't, then I won't be bothered with an ankle-biter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God your a liar. It was the scientist who was making the dire warnings.

What "dire warnings? Specifically? I don't see the dire climate change warnings in this thread to which you may refer. Surely you don't think I can read your mind.

Ah, so you ARE talking about the scientists. Or is it just one of them? Do his warnings vary from the consensus? How so? Are many scientists making these deviant warnings? Please be specific. I am curious to know if you really think you know more about this topic than the people who dedicate their lives to studying it. Then, we will know whether to mock and slap you, or talk to you like a functioning, rational adult.

So....?

 

[CWayne]

God your a liar. It was the scientist who was making the dire warnings.

What "dire warnings? Specifically? I don't see the dire climate change warnings in this thread to which you may refer. Surely you don't think I can read your mind.

Ah, so you ARE talking about the scientists. Or is it just one of them? Do his warnings vary from the consensus? How so? Are many scientists making these deviant warnings? Please be specific. I am curious to know if you really think you know more about this topic than the people who dedicate their lives to studying it. Then, we will know whether to mock and slap you, or talk to you like a functioning, rational adult.

So....?

Wow, you're stupid too.

From predictions by scientists of the next ice age to predictions that the polar ice would be gone by 2000, scientists have been fearmongering about climate disaster for over 40 years.

You're welcome to go peruse the 100's of climate threads on this forum if you're too lazy to go look for yourself.

Have a nice night.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

From predictions by scientists of the next ice age to predictions that the polar ice would be gone by 2000, scientists have been fearmongering about climate disaster for over 40 years.

Well, allow me to correct the very stupid things you just said, here.

For one, "predicting the next ice age" was never anywhere close to consensus, and, in fact, many more research scientists, and research papers, were concluding that the earth would warm due to our emissions.

Second, scientists, as a group, much less many (if any) individuals, did not predict the ice caps would be gone by 2000. They stated that such a thing was possible, though unlikely, per climate models. Just as when the extreme end of a hurricane model shows it hitting a particular city, though it is unlikely to hit that city.

So the only two examples you came up with were very stupid. This is a strong indication that your ideas and conclusions are likely just as stupid and misinformed, top-to-bottom. You should let that sink in.