Peer Review PRocess Breakdown; over 120 Prublished Articles Computer Gibberish

[JimBowie1958]

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers : Nature News & Comment

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

Conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated.

The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.

Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers.

This reminds me of a German scientist who was supposed to be doing radio carbon dating on fossils, but instead he was saving himself costs and just making a WAG. When his results were observed to be contrary to some new theoretical expectations, it was investigated and his dating proven fraudulent.

The Peer Review process only works as well as the people actually do the reviewing, lol.

But they're all good buddies working shoulder to shoulder against the ignorant peasants out here, so why sweat the small stuff like peer review?

 

[JimBowie1958]

bump for the chilluns!

 

[Old Rocks]

So one publication publishs computer generated articles, and you choose to tar all peer reviewed journals.

You don't like the evidence the scientists are presenting, go out and find credible evidence that supports your point of view. If you cannot, then accept that your point of view has no credible support.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Springer and IEEE have over 3,000,000 articles

 

[JimBowie1958]

So one publication publishs computer generated articles, and you choose to tar all peer reviewed journals.

Its just one journal we know of now. Give it some time.

Besides, whether its only one article or two million, the fact is that peer review is not the absolute process that a lot of science worshipping dweebs think it is.

You don't like the evidence the scientists are presenting, go out and find credible evidence that supports your point of view. If you cannot, then accept that your point of view has no credible support.

If only it were that simple. Some issues are so politicized in the sciences that many journals simply refuse to publish no matter what evidence is presented, the exact opposite of the 'publish anything that sounds scientific' problem.

And you are totally OK with that? lolol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Springer and IEEE have over 3,000,000 articles

That's great, and how many have actually been reviewed by anyone that could understand them?

 

[Old Rocks]

You know, we heard all of this bullshit when the tobacco companies were casting doubt on the fact that smoking is a major contributor to many differant illnesses. You want to play the doubt card? How about all the charlatans you have? Watt, Mountbatton, Limbaugh? No degrees in any kind of science, and the source of proven lies.

You want to get serious, go to the scientists that are on the ground, the glacialogists and the geologists that are in the field making direct observations, see what they have to say. Not computer generated articles, but articles that have the length, number, and location of the ice cores in what glaciers and ice caps. Articles that have the methodology of the sampling of isotopes and gases within those cores. And, yes, these articles are within peer reviewed journals.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You know, we heard all of this bullshit when the tobacco companies were casting doubt on the fact that smoking is a major contributor to many differant illnesses.

And you still didn't learn from it...sad.

 

[Old Rocks]

I learned when the corperate whores open their mouths, not to listen. The very same people that testified that there was no solid proof that tobacco was harmful testified that AGW is not happening. Paid by the same front companies. Lindzen and Singer are whores, as is Robinson in Oregon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I learned when the corperate whores open their mouths, not to listen. The very same people that testified that there was no solid proof that tobacco was harmful testified that AGW is not happening. Paid by the same front companies. Lindzen and Singer are whores, as is Robinson in Oregon.

This isn't a dodge, but if you have some links to back up your assertions from a neutral source that would be cool and I actually read what people post, ya know?