The Peer Review Scam [W:76]

[Jack Hays]

The best way to get good marks is to grade your own papers. When Nature.com calls a foul, that's worth noting.

The Peer Review Scam: Why not review your own paper? « JoNova

If you suffer from an uncontrollable urge to claim that peer review is a part of The Scientific Method (that’s you Matthew Bailes, Pro VC of Swinburne), the bad news just keeps on coming. Now, we can add the terms “Peer Review Rigging” to “Peer-review tampering”, and “Citation Rings”.
Not only do personal biases and self-serving interests mean good papers are slowed for years and rejected for inane reasons, but gibberish gets published, and in some fields most results can’t be replicated. Now we find (is anyone surprised?) that some authors are even reviewing their own work. It’s called Peer-Review-Rigging. When the editor asks for suggestions of reviewers, you provide pseudonyms and bogus emails. The editor sends the review to a gmail type address, you pick it up, and voila, you can pretend to be an independent reviewer.
One researcher, Hyung-In Moon, was doing this to review his own submissions. He was caught because he sent the reviews back in less than 24 hours. Presumably if he’d waiting a week, no one would have noticed.
[h=3]Nature reports: “THE PEER-REVIEW SCAM”[/h]Authors: Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky are the staff writer and two co-founders, respectively, of Retraction Watch in New York City.
Moon’s was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. “For a piece of software that’s used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling,” says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen,
Even Moon himself thinks the editors should “police the system against people like him”.
“editors are supposed to check they are not from the same institution or co-authors on previous papers.”
That would rule out half the publications in the climate science world. . . .

 

[Rainman05]

That whole website is a circle-jerk for climate change deniers.

I'm going to pass on an OP-ed article written by someone whom, as far as I can tell, has no real credentials to warrant her opinion being worth anything.
Shes' basically an aussie blogger and former childrens' media personality. As I said, forgive me for not taking her opinion on the issue as being worth commenting on.

Peer review is the best way we have to advance scientific understanding and knowledge. A specialist cannot be evaluated by the common plebe. His work must be evaluated by another specialist. And their interest is evaluating it according to scientific data.

It is true, peer-review is worthless in things like "social studies" or "gender studies" or such pseudointellectual fields. But not when you have hard facts leading to a scientific conclusion.

 

[Jack Hays]

That whole website is a circle-jerk for climate change deniers.

I'm going to pass on an OP-ed article written by someone whom, as far as I can tell, has no real credentials to warrant her opinion being worth anything.
Shes' basically an aussie blogger and former childrens' media personality. As I said, forgive me for not taking her opinion on the issue as being worth commenting on.

Peer review is the best way we have to advance scientific understanding and knowledge. A specialist cannot be evaluated by the common plebe. His work must be evaluated by another specialist. And their interest is evaluating it according to scientific data.

It is true, peer-review is worthless in things like "social studies" or "gender studies" or such pseudointellectual fields. But not when you have hard facts leading to a scientific conclusion.

You should read more carefully. Her blog post merely introduces an article from Nature.com, the website attached to the most prestigious scientific journal in the world.

 

[tomkat364]

That whole website is a circle-jerk for climate change deniers.

I'm going to pass on an OP-ed article written by someone whom, as far as I can tell, has no real credentials to warrant her opinion being worth anything.
Shes' basically an aussie blogger and former childrens' media personality. As I said, forgive me for not taking her opinion on the issue as being worth commenting on.

Peer review is the best way we have to advance scientific understanding and knowledge. A specialist cannot be evaluated by the common plebe. His work must be evaluated by another specialist. And their interest is evaluating it according to scientific data.

It is true, peer-review is worthless in things like "social studies" or "gender studies" or such pseudointellectual fields. But not when you have hard facts leading to a scientific conclusion.

Peer review is a terrible system, and as this author notes it perpetuates the current line of thought much more than promoting "new" science. This is a big problem in medicine, because the editors of many medical journals have a conflict of interest with the drug companies that advertise in the journals. There was a situation a couple years ago in which the editors of JAMA attempted to smear a researcher who wrote a letter that was critical of their publication process. In general, publication bias (the bias shown by a tendency to only publish studies with positive results) is a perfect example of how peer review fails in promoting the scientific process over getting "good" results.

But the biggest problem is that peer review naturally lends a degree of "credibility" to a paper, and most readers take that as confirmation of it's validity.

 

[Deuce]

Peer review is a terrible system, and as this author notes it perpetuates the current line of thought much more than promoting "new" science. This is a big problem in medicine, because the editors of many medical journals have a conflict of interest with the drug companies that advertise in the journals. There was a situation a couple years ago in which the editors of JAMA attempted to smear a researcher who wrote a letter that was critical of their publication process. In general, publication bias (the bias shown by a tendency to only publish studies with positive results) is a perfect example of how peer review fails in promoting the scientific process over getting "good" results.

But the biggest problem is that peer review naturally lends a degree of "credibility" to a paper, and most readers take that as confirmation of it's validity.

Yes, there are bad peer review processes. There are science "journals" out there that will literally publish anything that is sent to them as long as you pay them.

Bad police officers and prosecutors exist too, but that isn't an argument against having them exist.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, there are bad peer review processes. There are science "journals" out there that will literally publish anything that is sent to them as long as you pay them.

Bad police officers and prosecutors exist too, but that isn't an argument against having them exist.

It seems clear from the Nature.com article that "good" journals are as likely to be scammed as "bad" journals.

 

[ocean515]

Yes, there are bad peer review processes. There are science "journals" out there that will literally publish anything that is sent to them as long as you pay them.

Bad police officers and prosecutors exist too, but that isn't an argument against having them exist.

Might be an argument to question an agenda that requires the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and a change in the way every human being on the planet is allowed to work and live.

 

[Deuce]

Might be an argument to question an agenda that requires the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and a change in the way every human being on the planet is allowed to work and live.

Here's the thing:

You don't have the possibility for counter argument. You present reasons to be skeptical, but there are no circumstances that would convince you to accept what the proponents say. So, in reality, this was never an "argument"

 

[mak2]

From what I have seen peer review is really a bunch of peers trying to completey destory your study. Either some fields are far different than mine or they are a damn sight nicer to each other.

 

[Helix]

The Peer Review Scam

peer review is not a scam. i spent six months in 2013 doing experiments recommended by reviewers before our paper was finally accepted. i worked my ass off to get that paper published.

 

[Jack Hays]

peer review is not a scam. i spent six months in 2013 doing experiments recommended by reviewers before our paper was finally accepted. i worked my ass off to get that paper published.

Then you should applaud Nature.com's exposure of scams. Their diligence helps to protect your good name.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

From what I have seen peer review is really a bunch of peers trying to completey destory your study. Either some fields are far different than mine or they are a damn sight nicer to each other.

Yup. I've seen it too. It's really quite confrontational at times, and certainly not some sort of corporation. Their entire reason for being there to riddle years of work with as many bullet holes as they can.

Science is not a very nice process, and certainly not one full of yes-men. That is part of why it's so effective.

 

[Helix]

Then you should applaud Nature.com's exposure of scams. Their diligence helps to protect your good name.

Jack, you don't care about science or the peer review process. you are a partisan who only cares about climate science because of the political angle. everyone knows this, even those who agree with you. this is painfully obvious to those of us who actually work in peer reviewed research, but we generally let it go in order to be polite. but since you chose to respond, i'll let you know that i have worked in peer reviewed research for fifteen years now. i've been a part of many published studies. the review process is thorough and arduous.

i don't really give a **** about how you feel about climate science or what the right tells you to think. i don't much care what the left thinks, either. watching you guys fight about it is like watching zealots in a holy war. but this is what i do for a living. i know how it works firsthand. you do not. and when you attack the peer review process, you prove this to be the case every time.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, you don't care about science or the peer review process. you are a partisan who only cares about climate science because of the political angle. everyone knows this, even those who agree with you. this is painfully obvious to those of us who actually work in peer reviewed research, but we generally let it go in order to be polite. but since you chose to respond, i'll let you know that i have worked in peer reviewed research for fifteen years now. i've been a part of many published studies. the review process is thorough and arduous.

i don't really give a **** about how you feel about climate science or what the right tells you to think. i don't much care what the left thinks, either. watching you guys fight about it is like watching zealots in a holy war. but this is what i do for a living. i know how it works firsthand. you do not. and when you attack the peer review process, you prove this to be the case every time.

No one here has more respect for science or its practicioners than I do. The name of this forum is, however, Debate Politics, is it not? In this particular case your high dudgeon is ludicrously misplaced. The allegation that peer review is a scam comes from Nature.com, not me. Physician, heal thyself.

 

[Helix]

No one here has more respect for science or its practicioners than I do. The name of this forum is, however, Debate Politics, is it not? In this particular case your high dudgeon is ludicrously misplaced. The allegation that peer review is a scam comes from Nature.com, not me. Physician, heal thyself.

So, your opinion is that peer review is not a scam?

 

[Jack Hays]

So, your opinion is that peer review is not a scam?

Peer review is an essential process in publishing research results. As the Nature.com authors point out, however, scammers have become increasingly sophisticated in gaming the system, and editors are struggling to keep up. The unfortunate result is that the credibility of peer review is diminished for everyone. Those who expose and combat this fraud are the allies of honest scientists, not their enemies.

 

[Helix]

Peer review is an essential process in publishing research results. As the Nature.com authors point out, however, scammers have become increasingly sophisticated in gaming the system, and editors are struggling to keep up. The unfortunate result is that the credibility of peer review is diminished for everyone. Those who expose and combat this fraud are the allies of honest scientists, not their enemies.

But you admit that the overall peer review process is not a scam as your title indicates, correct?

 

[Jack Hays]

But you admit that the overall peer review process is not a scam as your title indicates, correct?

The thread title is simply taken from the Nature.com article. The peer review scam is the article's subject and, hence, it's title.

 

[Verax]

 

[Visbek]

Peer review is a terrible system....

So the alternative you propose is, what exactly?

as this author notes it perpetuates the current line of thought much more than promoting "new" science.

Please. This is just another rationalization of criticizing the majority of scientific work which shows, fairly definitively, that AGW is happening.

And of course, every once in awhile a paper will be published that can be twisted into supporting the denialist position, in which case the deniers will crow about it being "peer-reviewed."

the biggest problem is that peer review naturally lends a degree of "credibility" to a paper, and most readers take that as confirmation of it's validity.

Odd, I don't know a lot of people who think that way. Peer review doesn't mean that a paper is correct or incorrect. What it means is that it's passed a basic level of review. The better the journal, the more strict the level of review, but even being published in the most prestigious journal still doesn't mean (or prove that) the paper is correct.

 

[Jack Hays]

I bear no responsibility for the unwarranted assumptions of my interlocutors.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is disheartening when a thread that highlights the effort to maintain high standards in science is misconstrued as an attack on science. No good deed goes unpunished.

 

[Helix]

It is disheartening when a thread that highlights the effort to maintain high standards in science is misconstrued as an attack on science. No good deed goes unpunished.

when one posts a thread with an inflammatory title which dismisses peer review as a scam, that tends to happen.

 

[Jack Hays]

when one posts a thread with an inflammatory title which dismisses peer review as a scam, that tends to happen.

The title was chosen by Nature.com, and is only inflammatory to those who are defensive and hypersensitive.

 

[Declan]

peer review is not a scam. i spent six months in 2013 doing experiments recommended by reviewers before our paper was finally accepted. i worked my ass off to get that paper published.

You should have just opened some gmail accounts and created yourself some peers.