Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Scholarly journal smashes ‘peer review ring’

13 posts in this topic

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.

Read more

Wow, the "quack quotes quack merry-go-round" found its way into academia...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Not really surprised. Anything ran by humans is going to have things like this happen.

Also because academics are under huge pressure to publish anything. Idt most people realize how competitive the academic research world is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohreally_zps5ad3be8b.gif

So does this mean people will see a reduction in the "it's never been recognized in a peer reviewed study" comebacks on strange and unusual topics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohreally_zps5ad3be8b.gif

So does this mean people will see a reduction in the "it's never been recognized in a peer reviewed study" comebacks on strange and unusual topics?

No, it will just mean that BS will not be accepted with or without peer review.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ohreally_zps5ad3be8b.gif

So does this mean people will see a reduction in the "it's never been recognized in a peer reviewed study" comebacks on strange and unusual topics?

Nope, the peer review process is solid and instances such as this are extremely rare. And when they do happen, the system works to correct itself. In this case, the papers were withdrawn - do the "woo peddlers" ever withdraw a paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow, the "quack quotes quack merry-go-round" found its way into academia...

That's the ones that they found? Tip of the ice burg me thinks.

Aaa yes several arguments on a number of threads have been vindicated... At least there is somone actually peer reviewing peer review... Id like to see more of that actually

Edited by White Crane Feather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, the peer review process is solid and instances such as this are extremely rare. And when they do happen, the system works to correct itself. In this case, the papers were withdrawn - do the "woo peddlers" ever withdraw a paper?

Have faith do we? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Psych research methods class last semester, one day we went over how apprentley a ton of the published papers are not getting replicated by anyone because if your a researcher it does not benefit you in anyway to replicate someones paper. It just waste time when you could be working on publishing a paper. Or begging for grant money.

So lots of papers are not even getting replicated enough.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my Psych research methods class last semester, one day we went over how apprentley a ton of the published papers are not getting replicated by anyone because if your a researcher it does not benefit you in anyway to replicate someones paper. It just waste time when you could be working on publishing a paper. Or begging for grant money.

So lots of papers are not even getting replicated enough.

The problem with psychology is that it is not really quantifiable and will not be until we learn a lot more about the workings of a human brain.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and this...

According to a 2011 report in the monthly journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn't be reproduced.

... http://www.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747

...

Overall, admission rates are consistent with the highest estimates of misconduct obtained using other sources of data, in particular FDA data audits [11], [18]. However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

...

In addition, some academics consider suppression—the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does this mean people will see a reduction in the "it's never been recognized in a peer reviewed study" comebacks on strange and unusual topics?

Could you cite where that was last misused? I'd like to see an example.

And may I ask:

Do you avoid going outside because there are a few odd loonies in the world?

Do you not get into cars because they crash sometimes?

Or do you do the best you can to make informed judgments, and use whatever tools and verification methods you can, even though on rare occasions those techniques may be misused by others?

And for heaven's sake, peer review is ALWAYS being re-reviewed, and anyone who wants to add their two cents in is welcome to whenever they like. If they do that *well*, they will be listened to. The only thing that scientists like more than new discoveries, is fixing up/correcting mistakes and old theories, especially those of others... :D

Added Ooops, sorry for the slightly necro-post..

Edited by ChrLzs
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

necro posts are fine... I always like to add or re-explore old findings when I find new interesting info on a topic... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.