Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #26 Share Posted February 25, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice?INTCMP=SRCH Fraud are threatening science The Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel was found to have published fabricated data in 30 peer-reviewed papers. "Outright fraud is somewhat impossible to estimate, because if you're really good at it you wouldn't be detectable," said Simonsohn, a social psychologist. "It's like asking how much of our money is fake money – we only catch the really bad fakers, the good fakers we never catch." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #27 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Who Reviews the Reviewers? Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results. Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #28 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) so, the L, have you bothered by reading the results of the "studies" to improve peer review? Blinding reviewers to the identity of authors Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews. Opening up peer review It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions. Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion. Training reviewers The overall result was that training made little difference.4 Meaning, most reviewers actually review the paper based on what is written in it. Not biased or anything. The rest is just an author venting frustrations about his workplace experience. Edited February 25, 2013 by Render 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #29 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Now, read if you can and use your reason. Edited February 25, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #30 Share Posted February 25, 2013 so, the L, have you bothered by reading the results of the "studies" to improve peer review? Blinding reviewers to the identity of authors Neither study found that blinding reviewers improved the quality of reviews. Opening up peer review It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions. Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion. Training reviewers The overall result was that training made little difference.4 Meaning, most reviewers actually review the paper based on what is written in it. Not biased or anything. The rest is just an author venting frustrations about his workplace experience. have you bother to read what I link. let me help you. Read post 27. Then reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #31 Share Posted February 25, 2013 have you bother to read what I link. let me help you. Read post 27. Then reply. well thats a really lame attempt to answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #32 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Here it is for you who are lazy. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/ss/ well thats a really lame attempt to answer No. Those are facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #33 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Lame is your ignorance on studies I provided, You need to get social with those links in order to continue your debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #34 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Here it is for you who are lazy. http://www.bmartin.c...t/documents/ss/ No. Those are facts. Im asking you to form your own thoughts on a question ... but okay, nevermind. Go on your link posting extravaganza. Whatever will help you sleep at night eh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 25, 2013 #35 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief. http://www.wakingtim...l-publications/ Other contributors (BB, Expand, Render, Spartan Max, Green) have already pointed out flaws in your interpretation of the article. You may wish to also spend a bit of time studying the source itself. While the source is "interesting", it hardly ranks as authoritative, nor is it unbiased. As previously pointed out, though peer-review may not be absolutely perfect, it is generally a notable asset in regards to the presentation of accurate and credible research. It should also be noted that certain professions have a somewhat higher incidence of "malfeasance" in the peer-review process. Some rather recent studies have indicated that the medical field may be amongst the most prominent in this regard. And even at this, the percentages were quite low. To grossly label the peer-review process in all fields of science as "BS" merely demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the research and publication processes. One can only hope that your professed interest in furthering your formal studies comes to fruition. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #36 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Let me repeat this who have problems with reading: Sixty-eight percent of the reviewers did not realize that the conclusions of the work were not supported by the results. Peer reviewers in this study failed to identify two thirds of the major errors in such a manuscript. Or in numbers. 68% 2/3 That is your holy grail. Edited February 25, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #37 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Swede what you need to do is to get social with those links I provided in order to continue your debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #38 Share Posted February 25, 2013 getting social with links do we need to seduce the authors or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #39 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) getting social with links do we need to seduce the authors or what? If you like seducing smart mature males...It depends on you. --- The Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel was found to have published fabricated data in 30 peer-reviewed papers. Priceless. Edited February 25, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #40 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Your cut/copy keys are stuck on repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #41 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) You can be ignorant and continue to live in your utopia or you can be indenpendent thinking person and finally start to belive in science. But as Einstein told: “Small is the number of people who see with their eyes and think with their minds” Whats hilarious is that you all so called men of science sudenly dont believe in studies. Edited February 25, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #42 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Your cut/copy keys are stuck on repeat. There is saying in my country. "Pametnome jednom dosta." Translation: "To smart you need to tell only once." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #43 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Your posts are hilarious to me and the point of this thread seems to be non existent. The fact that you are repeatedly posting about mistakes that have been made, prove they have been found and corrected. Which is what science does. So what's the point L, too much time on your hands? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted February 25, 2013 #44 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Swede what you need to do is to get social with those links I provided in order to continue your debate. "Get social"? Your references have been reviewed. No addendum to the previous points would appear to be necessary. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #45 Share Posted February 25, 2013 So what's the point L, too much time on your hands? "To smart you need to tell only once." Sorry for copy pasting again but I just think that fits perfectly here, again. Point is- Peer review is outdated and not working. If somehow you failed to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #46 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "To smart you need to tell only once." Sorry for copy pasting again but I just think that fits perfectly here, again. Point is- Peer review is outdated and not working. If somehow you failed to understand it. It appears the only one here that's needs repetitive explanation is you. Re-read the thread and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #47 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Render you are ignorant. Not insult just recognition. I can proove you. But if i were you I wouldnt dig my hole deeper. Its deep enough, So I wouldnt ask for proof but rather read. I will repeat you: read! edit: I understand you are angry. I hate to loose too. Edited February 25, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #48 Share Posted February 25, 2013 "proove me" ? .. are you hitting on me Elly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted February 25, 2013 Author #49 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Render I must ask you, sorry but are you talking with yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Render Posted February 25, 2013 #50 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Render I must ask you, sorry but are you talking with yourself? Man, you are harsh on yourself. Are you trying to tell me you're non existent? I kinda had a feeling you're a non factor. Thanks for the confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts