Peer reviewed Junk Science

“any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed”

Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Peer reviewed Junk Science

  1. GWS says:

    This has been going on for years and no one says a peep. We’re all a bunch of sheep.

  2. arn says:

    There is a nice article at the intercept that fits too well into this picture:
    “Pfizer is Lobbying to thwart Whistleblowers from Ex posing corporate fraud “

  3. Thomas Fowler says:

    The problem with peer review is that with increased specialization, there are fewer and fewer people with the credentials to actually review the work submitted, not to mention the time it takes, and as the article notes, the lack of remuneration. On top of that, in many areas, political correctness plays a large role, such as evolution, climate change, and increasingly, in Covid research–if the paper doesn’t toe the line, it is rejected. And finally, most people assume that a “peer-reviewed paper” is correct. This is entirely wrong. Peer review only guarantees (at best) that the paper contains no egregious errors, and does not contradict well-established facts.

    • Rory Forbes says:

      Until commercial publications gratuitously assumed the process of ‘peer review’ in their own publications, it was merely the act of the author’s colleagues reading his work and commenting. Presently ‘peer review’ is solely to the benefit of the publisher, insuring that the paper is correctly vetted for errors. Scientific methodology gets no benefit.

      • GreyGeek says:

        The AGW people at Univ of East Anglia CRU got a chuckle over the fact that they were peer-reviewing each others papers. They also bragged about getting critical editors of climate journals replaced with ones which rubber stamped their submissions and didn’t require the data on which the claims in their papers were made.

        Publish or perish was alive and well in 1968 as I waited anxiously for my paper to appear in print before any similar paper was published. If someone beat me to print then I had to start my research project afresh on a new topic. After three years my wife wouldn’t stand for another year or three and I didn’t blame her. Fortunately my paper appeared first and I graduates.

        In 1987 PBS published an episode of NOVA titled “Do Scientists Cheat?”. It is on YouTube. I showed that video in my college science classes as illustrations of trimming, padding, cooking or making up data out of thin air, research activities which were consider immoral and unethical while I was in grad school. The episode concluded with an estimate that 48% of all theses were falsified in some way. The two scientists who did the research about cheating and wrote the script for the show were later transferred to desk jobs in the boonies. Those whistle-blowers who outed the cheaters said afterward that they would never report unethical activity by a colleague again because they were treated in several cases worse than the offender.

      • GreyGeek says:

        The AGW people at Univ of East Anglia CRU got a chuckle over the fact that they were peer-reviewing each others papers. They also bragged about getting critical editors of climate journals replaced with ones which rubber stamped their submissions and didn’t require the data on which the claims in their papers were made.

        Publish or perish was alive and well in 1968 as I waited anxiously for my paper to appear in print before any similar paper was published. If someone beat me to print then I had to start my research project afresh on a new topic. After three years my wife wouldn’t stand for another year or three and I didn’t blame her. Fortunately my paper appeared first and I graduated.

        In 1987 PBS published an episode of NOVA titled “Do Scientists Cheat?”. It is on YouTube. I showed that video in my college science classes as illustrations of trimming, padding, cooking or making up data out of thin air, research activities which were consider immoral and unethical while I was in grad school. The episode concluded with an estimate that 48% of all theses were falsified in some way. The two scientists who did the research about cheating and wrote the script for the show were later transferred to desk jobs in the boonies. Those whistle-blowers who outed the cheaters said afterward that they would never report unethical activity by a colleague again because they were treated in several cases worse than the offender.

  4. Peter says:

    The article is more than 10 years old, but I guess not much has changed for the better since then.

    IMHO peer-review does not work nowadays. You need ‘enemy’-review. Your ‘enemy’ will do anything to get the flaws out of your paper. :-)

  5. Paul Wood says:

    Why don’t those “climate scientist” who believe its not man made peer review others who think the same. Just like those on the gravy train.

  6. Rhadamanthus says:

    I don’t know why so much store is set by peer review. I hear time and time again that some scientific paper should be accepted and believed because it has supposedly been peer reviewed. But a paper’s merit depends on what it has to say; not on whether some other like minded academic gives a seal of approval to it. Both of them could just be sharing the same delusions, groupthink, ideology or agenda. When Einstein published his four ground breaking scientific papers in 1905 none of them were peer reviewed. Did this mean that they should have been ignored? In reality, under the pressure of the “publish or perish” syndrome the process of peer review has degenerated into one of mutual back scratching pal review. I’ll give the green light to publishing your career promoting second rate science if you’ll give the green light to publishing mine. Peer review should just be done away with. Let all papers be published. Readers can judge for themselves what’s worth looking at.

  7. Chuck Hortler says:

    It would be good to see an updated version of the state of peer review. Based on the numerous non-repeatable findings across many disciplines, I’d say the situation has gotten worse, not better. The Elizabeth Holmes trial being a major case in point — although she was just plain blocking any review and was ponzi-scheming the numbers supporting her amazing new discoveries.

    The bigger peer-review-style scam of the P(l)andemic is the PCR Test. Oh, you need significant growth in cases? Let’s run the cycle times 5 – 10x the originally recommended number of cycles or… until we find what we already are sure is there (e.g. there *IS* a pandemic to be found if we just look hard enough). Enter the PCR

    https://brownstone.org/articles/pcr-tests-and-the-rise-of-disease-panic/

  8. Chuck Hortler says:

    PCR tests are the Covid “peer review” liar’s dice.

    From Brownstone dot org site (I cannot post links) : PCR Tests and the Rise of Disease Panic by Ian McNulty – Dec 2, 2021

    Even the inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993, vehemently opposed using PCR to diagnose diseases: “PCR is a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It allows you to take a very miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it like it’s important.“

    PCR has certainly allowed public health authorities and the media around the world to talk about a new variant of Coronavirus like it’s important, but how important is it really?

  9. logic n reason says:

    One of the things I have noted is the article was published more than ten years ago. The author was highly critical of a paper submitted by a pro acupuncture study. What was refreshing was the person who headed that study was given the opportunity to answer and refute some of the points that had been raised. This doesn’t happen now and The Guardian leads the way in shutting down any debate especially when it comes to the religion of climate change alarmism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *