[h=2]Dear journals: Clean up your act. Regards, Concerned Biostatistician[/h][FONT="][URL="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/21/dear-journals-clean-act-regards-concerned-biostatistican/#comments"]with 9 comments[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][CENTER][IMG]http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/romain2.jpg[/IMG]Romain-Daniel Gosselin
[/CENTER]
[I]Recently, a biostatistician sent an open letter to editors of 10 major science journals, urging them to pay more attention to common statistical problems with papers. Specifically, [/I][URL="https://www.linkedin.com/in/romain-daniel-gosselin-7179b33/"]Romain-Daniel Gosselin[/URL], Founder and CEO of Biotelligences, which trains researchers in biostatistics, counted how many of 10 recent papers in each of the 10 journals contained two common problems: omitting the sample size used in experiments, as well as the tests used as part of the statistical analyses. (Short answer: Too many.) Below, we have reproduced his letter.
Dear Editors and Colleagues,
I write this letter as a biologist and instructor of biostatistics, concerned about the disregard for statistical reporting that is threatening scientific reproducibility. I hereby urge you to spearhead the strict application of existing guidelines on statistical reporting. Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:
Hmmmm. :?: Interesting title for a thread: "This could never happen in Climate Science." :mrgreen:
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
I am guessing that since the Journals are a nineteenth century method of spreading scientific knowledge,[FONT="][COLOR=#FFFFFF]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process[/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=2]A university asked for numerous retractions. Eight months later, three journals have done nothing.[/h]with 2 comments
]Anil JaiswalWhen journals learn papers are problematic, how long does it take them to act?
We recently had a chance to find out as part of our continuing coverage of the case of Anil Jaiswal at the University of Maryland, who’s retracted 15 papers (including two new ones we recently identified), and has transitioned out of cancer research. Here’s what happened.
As part of a public records request related to the investigation, we received letters that the University of Maryland sent to 11 journals regarding 26 “compromised” papers co-authored by Jaiswal, four of which had been retracted by the time of the letter. The letters were dated between August and September 2016 (and one in February) — although, in some cases, the journals told us they received the letter later. Since that date, three journals have retracted nine papers and corrected another, waiting between four and six months to take action. One journal published an editorial note of concern within approximately two months after the university letter.
And six journals have not taken any public action.
Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
Yeah, and it isn't like the Climate Sciences have a history of hand selecting peer reviewers and failing to submit the raw data and methods with their journal submissions!
... oh, wait...
All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.
Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.
You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
When you say "All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it." I am not sure that is accurate.All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.
Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.
You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
False.
This isn't the only instance. It has been a decades long fight to get people like Hansen, Mann and others to actually make their data and methods available.
Raw climate data is publicly available. Individuals do not own the data. The same data is shared by the several agencies in the several countries which analyse it. They each utilize their own unique and distinct data processing techniques. They all produce somewhat different yet similar results which are consistent across board.
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.
Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.
You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
False.
This isn't the only instance. It has been a decades long fight to get people like Hansen, Mann and others to actually make their data and methods available.
Raw climate data is publicly available. Individuals do not own the data. The same data is shared by the several agencies in the several countries which analyse it. They each utilize their own unique and distinct data processing techniques. They all produce somewhat different yet similar results which are consistent across board.
No, not all raw data is publicly available. In fact, much of the raw data used to calculate climate in HADCRUT in the 90s was destroyed.
Jmotivator is right on this account. When I read articles in Nature and other journals outside of the climate sciences, the paper might be 2-3 pages, than another 12 pages or so in methodology. I rarely see open methodology in any AGW related paper.
So, when a research team writes a paper concerning the nature of deep sea sediments, glacial run off, solar variability, atmospheric CO2 isotopic ratios, atmospheric IR spectroscopy etc... the methodologies are not explained because the research may impact on climate?
You make it sound like research is AGW specific when it isn't.
Are ice cores drilled in the Antarctic with the expressed purpose of supporting AGW? Maybe it's done just for the sake of understanding the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere in the past, or what temperatures in Antarctica where like in the past?... Just maybe?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?