So, you swear by "peer-reviewed" scientific studies huh?

[Grim17]

This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.

[h=1]Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
John Bohannon[/h]A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.



On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.


In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.


<snip>



Of the 255 papers that underwent the entire editing process to acceptance or rejection, about 60% of the final decisions occurred with no sign of peer review. For rejections, that's good news: It means that the journal's quality control was high enough that the editor examined the paper and declined it rather than send it out for review. But for acceptances, it likely means that the paper was rubber-stamped without being read by anyone.


Of the 106 journals that discernibly performed any review, 70% ultimately accepted the paper. Most reviews focused exclusively on the paper's layout, formatting, and language. This sting did not waste the time of many legitimate peer reviewers. Only 36 of the 304 submissions generated review comments recognizing any of the paper's scientific problems. And 16 of those papers were accepted by the editors despite the damning reviews.


The results show that Beall is good at spotting publishers with poor quality control: For the publishers on his list that completed the review process, 82% accepted the paper. Of course that also means that almost one in five on his list did the right thing—at least with my submission. A bigger surprise is that for DOAJ publishers that completed the review process, 45% accepted the bogus paper. "I find it hard to believe," says Bjørnshauge, the DOAJ founder. "We have been working with the community to draft new tighter criteria for inclusion." Beall, meanwhile, notes that in the year since this sting began, "the number of predatory publishers and predatory journals has continued to escalate at a rapid pace."

Complete article

In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.


Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.

 

[Middleground]

This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.







In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.


Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.

Seem like you didn't bother to read the artice yourself:

Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws

So out of 304 submittals, more than half were accepted. How does that equate to all???

 

[ecofarm]

Open (read: free) access journals? Meh.

 

[Manc Skipper]

How does 60% showing no sign of peer review a condemnation of peer review?

 

[Redress]

Open access journals have a problem with peer review. It is also important to note that peer review does not mean a paper is accurate, only that it is more likely to be, and the results he got show this to be the case as the paper was turned down almost 100 times. And lastly, his list was not random, but included open access journals that where seen as "predatory"

You should probably make an effort to understand what you read and not jump to conclusions. This does in no way diminish climate science.

 

[KLATTU]

How does 60% showing no sign of peer review a condemnation of peer review?

Are you serious?

Wow. Just scarey Wow.could you have proved the OP's point any more emphatically?

 

[KLATTU]

Seem like you didn't bother to read the artice yourself:



So out of 304 submittals, more than half were accepted. How does that equate to all???

unreal.

Just proves us skeptics are spot on.

 

[Middleground]

Open (read: free) access journals? Meh.

Well that is another valid point too. Seems with the Internet age, one can create their own scientific research database just for the hell of it. That is why reputable publishers like Nature should be taken much more seriously than others.

 

[Middleground]

unreal.

Just proves us skeptics are spot on.

In your world, absolutely.

 

[Muhammed]

Climate science is notorious for it's lack of independent peer-review.

 

[Deuce]

Yes, not all journals are created equal. This is a surprise?

 

[Grim17]

Seem like you didn't bother to read the artice yourself:



So out of 304 submittals, more than half were accepted. How does that equate to all???

When I said "All those" it was meant to be an expression for "that mess of" or "that big bunch of"... I didn't mean that all of those who received the paper had accepted and published it.

 

[Middleground]

When I said "All those" it was meant to be an expression for "that mess of" or "that big bunch of"... I didn't mean that all of those who received the paper had accepted and published it.

If that's the case, then your choice of wording was very deceitful and misleading. Plenty of "those" publishers did not accept his bogus paper.

 

[Oftencold]

unreal.

Just proves us skeptics are spot on.

Or are we?

 

[davidtaylorjr]

This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.







In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.


Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.

:caution: :alert you are exposing their idiocy, that won't go over well here.....

 

[Dezaad]

This article goes a long way in explaining why there are so many scientific controversies out there today, and lends further credibility to my belief, that to those who hype "man made global warming" it's more of a religion than anything else.







In case you don't bother reading the article, I thought I'd mention that author of the bogus study that was submitted and accepted by all of those so called "peer-reviewed" scientific publications, Ocorrafoo Cobange, is a fictitious person who doesn't even exist, as well as his research institute the Wassee Institute of Medicine.


Think about this article the next time any of you want to preach man made global warming.

Grim, it is so sad that you have completely misunderstood the thrust of the article. You missed the part where these fly by night "journals" are not peer reviewed. You missed the part where these publications are all online ones, and are not the ones with long established good reputations and a hard copy presence. And sadly, over the years, you missed the part where it is in these long established journals with high credibility that the papers giving mounds of evidence for AGW have been published.

Your post is a giant fail, showing such deeply entrenched and willful ignorance. You really do need to take some time, like a couple of weeks of steady work, to explore what publications there are out there and which ones are credible and why.

 

[Redress]

:caution: :alert you are exposing their idiocy, that won't go over well here.....

Dishonest posting rarely goes over well.

 

[Grim17]

If that's the case, then your choice of wording was very deceitful and misleading. Plenty of "those" publishers did not accept his bogus paper.

No, my words were a mistake... A mistake that those capable of seeing past their political biases understood right away.

 

[Grim17]

Dishonest posting rarely goes over well.

About as well as your pathetic attempts to insult me and question my intefrity... So, I guess the only question now is, are you going to get butt-hurt and start stalking me again?

 

[Redress]

About as well as your pathetic attempts to insult me and question my intefrity... So, I guess the only question now is, are you going to get butt-hurt and start stalking me again?

I and others have quote clearly showed how your post was inaccurate in detail and does not mean what you claim. You have yet to be able to refute even one of those.

Responding to a post on a debate forum is not stalking. Nice try though, when you cannot refute posts, you attack the poster.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Dishonest posting rarely goes over well.

Yep it sure does, glad he was telling the truth! I wish the liberals would do the same. They seem incapable. :shrug:

 

[Wiseone]

If I can't trust a peer-reviewed paper what should I trust to educate myself about an issue I'm not very knowledgeable about?

Is there an alternative grim?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

If I can't trust a peer-reviewed paper what should I trust to educate myself about an issue I'm not very knowledgeable about?

Is there an alternative grim?

The alternative is take every peer reviewed paper with a grain of salt and don't believe everything you read. Be skeptical be smart.

 

[Threegoofs]

When I said "All those" it was meant to be an expression for "that mess of" or "that big bunch of"... I didn't mean that all of those who received the paper had accepted and published it.

What you fail to grasp is the current state of scientific publishing. There are top tier journals (Science mag, Nature, PNAS, etc) that probably reject 99% of all papers coming in, and rigorously review the rest. These are very high 'impact journals'. The science in them is very solid. Then you have second tier journals that take a lot of specialized stuff, which are generally good but not always. Then you have a bunch of third tier journals which accept anything and everything with pretty crappy peer review. These are found in many disciplines. The one for climate is 'Energy and Environment', which is often cited in AGW threads as "peer reviewed research!". Then there are open journals, which are basically non reviewed...or 'crowd reviewed'.

To borrow from that redneck guy, If you cant make the distinction between a paper in Nature and one in an open source journal, you may be a Climate Change Denier.

 

[Redress]

Yep it sure does, glad he was telling the truth! I wish the liberals would do the same. They seem incapable. :shrug:

Except he was not. Might try reading the source and discovering what it actually says. Might also want to learn what peer review is, and open source journals. Educating yourself on a topic you want to comment on is a good idea.