Who's affraind of Peer Review?

[Patrickt]

"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.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. 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. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientific journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees rather than traditional subscriptions. Most of the players are murky. The identity and location of the journals' editors, as well as the financial workings of their publishers, are often purposefully obscured. But Science's investigation casts a powerful light. Internet Protocol (IP) address traces within the raw headers of e-mails sent by journal editors betray their locations. Invoices for publication fees reveal a network of bank accounts based mostly in the developing world. And the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise."

---Science 04 Oct 2013
---link Who's Afraid of Peer Review? | Science

The sad thing is the article is more than two years old and the number of open access journals has quadrupled today. Anyone can start one and anything can be published in one and all will believe as actual research because it is peer reviews which is is not.
https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/ which does not mean they are all predatory journals OR that they are set up to fool the small minded. But fooling is what they do. Especially if the subject has a political end. I find it much harder to do research today even with so much more info out there because I have to study more deeply trying to unearth spoofs.

I have been fooled more than once.

Who is afraid of peer reviews? Frauds and those who fund them.

 

[faithful_servant]

One of the reasons a person gets an advanced degree is to learn how to critique research. There have always, and I mean always, been faked studies and faked science. The reason to get a masters is to learn what research to pay attention to. The reasons to get a PhD is to learn to conduct research correctly.

Why would someone fake research??

 

[Pin dÁr]

Who is afraid of peer reviews? Frauds and those who fund them.

Nope, people who really search for truth!

Look at Tesla!

Look at ho wmany patents!

Then see how may peer-reviews!: 0




Hmmmmmm that is saying something about peer preview, it is a political thing.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Why would someone fake research??

No idea?

starts with an m..

But there is more.


The whole of science is a tinly disguised religion to keep us from any real truth.

 

[Pin dÁr]

As I said al along peer review is over rated and 'scientists' can't really think very logical at all!

The tragic effects of confirmatory bias are not, however, restricted to clinical disorders. In fact, as has been argued elsewhere (Mahoney, 1976), the most costly expression of this tendency may well be among scientists themselves. To the extent that researchers display this bias, our adequate understanding of the processes and parameters of human adaptation may be seriously jeopardized. If we selectively "find" or communicate only those data that support a given model of behavior, then our inquiry efforts will hardly be optimally effective. Despite the fact that confirmatory bias in scientists was first noted by Francis Bacon (1621/1960) over three centuries ago, precious little research has been devoted to the topic and the few extant studies have hardly challenged Bacon's observations. One study found that the vast majority of scientists drawn from a national sample showed a strong preference for "confirmatory" experiments (Mahoney & Kimper, 1976). Over half of these scientists did not even recognize disconfirmation (modus tollens) as a valid reasoning form! In another study the logical reasoning skills of 30 scientists were compared to those of 15 relatively uneducated Protestant ministers (Mahoney & DeMonbreun, 1977). Where there were performance differences, they tended to favor the ministers. Confirmatory bias was prevalent in both groups, but the ministers used disconfirmatory logic almost twice as often as the scientists did.

Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System
Michael J. Mahoney
Cognitive Therapy and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1977, PP. 161-1 75

So, we have now established that most 'scientists' are dumb! Except the on who did this research! lol


Why oh why do people take 'scientists'so damned seriously?????????????????????????????

 

[Pin dÁr]

But the FACT als has been established that we even can't trust medical journal papers at all!



Please don't take these 'scientist' seriously! the are more like clowns.....without the laughter.


The world is in a sad state of affairs.

 

[kanabco]

I posted this out of serious concern about the overuse of Journal links in online debate forums and blogs. What was once an unimpeachable source of scientific certitude seems to have fallen into electronic disarray.
So I exchanged emails with the most published expert on this phenomenon, Bonnie Swogger. Here is her response.

"First, you are correct that the number of scientific journals and scientific articles has greatly increased in recent years. (See this interesting blog post from Nature that discusses the rate of increase. Global scientific output doubles every nine years : News blog )

There are several reasons for this increase:

1-More scientists.
2-An increase in the number of universities around the world that ask their faculty to do (and publish) original research. This includes smaller colleges in the US that didn't have such requirements 50 years ago, along with a growing number of colleges and universities in foreign countries.
3-Increased pressure on academics to publish more papers in order to meet tenure and promotion requirements. Again, the requirements for tenure and promotion have increased at many institutions.
4-There is money to be made in publishing. Create more journals, you can sell more subscriptions.
5-It is easier than ever to start a journal. I could start one this afternoon with a bit money to purchase a URL and the skill to use some open source publishing software.
6-The growth of the open access movement and the subsequent desire to create open access versions of journals.

It is probably easier than ever to get published. You might not make it into the top journals, but there is definitely someplace that will accept your article.

You are also correct that this creates some major problems for evaluating the content of the articles. Top tier journals have even faced problems with their peer review process as fraudulent and error-filled papers are published in the name of getting at the most cutting edge material.

The existing peer review process is not open: no one but the editor knows who the "peers" even are. A journal can claim they have a review process, but it is very difficult to evaluate those claims. The reviews are never published, and we don't know how an article may have been improved by the process. Researchers have struggled to even figure out what makes a "good" peer review good (see the attached article).

After saying all of this, how can folks know that they are looking at good science these days? The short answer is that it takes time - time to see if anyone corroborates the information, time to see if anyone cites it, replicates it or refutes it. Google Scholar can show if other scholars have cited the original paper.

There is also movement towards more open peer review. F1000Research is an interesting new journal that posts copies of the reviews of the published papers. PeerJ is another that (mostly) posts reviews. And the website PubPeer allows scientists to comment on journal articles that are covered by PubMed. For some articles, it is great at outlining deficits in experimental or statistical methods.

Does this shed some light on your questions? There isn't a quick answer I"m afraid. Many say the peer-review and publishing system is broken. I'm not sure if that is 100% true, but it is definitely evolving and academia is experiencing some serious growing pains as it does.

Bonnie"

So although many here are professionals and can provide "tips" the fact is the certitude of factual information being published in an online Journal can be more vigorously questioned than ever before... and should be.

https://chminfo.wikispaces.com/file...s+resistant+to+study+-+9-20-13-Sciencemag.pdf
Information Culture: Thoughts and analysis related to science, information, data, publication and culture.
https://undergraduatesciencelibrarian.org/

 

[kanabco]

That's one reason you really need to be in the profession to know it well, because a deep understanding allows you to accurately differentiate sources.

As does a deep bias. I will never allow one to tell me something and accept it simply because they say I should (pro tip). If that were the case I could probably rule your thoughts simply by stating quite factually, that I should know based based on the fact that, "I have been doing this professionally for more than half a century". See what I mean? The depth of anyone's understanding on a blog or forums is always suspect and in fact the reason I started this thread to begin with.

 

[kanabco]

Peer review isnt limited to just journals. Peer review applies to science in general. Other scientists will review the work and try it out just to make sure. Which has little to do with publications.

You are so right and would probably further agree with me should I bring up the way science gets to other scientists to think about things. They don't need the journal to preach to them. They need the journal to give them ideas. Regrettably really bad ides get in their head if they allow the wrong journal to influence them and there in lies the problem.

 

[kanabco]

Why would someone fake research??

One of the funnest books I have ever read on this subject was "Betrayers of the Truth, Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science" -- Broad Wade
The most lecture worthy piece in the book is:
----------------------------------
Peas on Earth

In the beginning there was Mendel, thinking his lonely thoughts alone. And he said: "Let there be peas", and there were peas and it was very good. And he put the peas in a garden saying unto them "Increase and multiply, segregate and assort yourselves independently," and they did and it was good. And now it came to pass that when Mendel gathered up his peas, he divided them into round and wrinkled, and called the round the dominate and the wrinkled the recessive, and it was good. But now Mendel saw that there were 450 round peas and 102 wrinkled ones; this was not good. For the law stateth that there should be 3 round for every wrinkled. And Mendel said unto himself "Gott in Himmel, an enemy has done, this, he has sown bad peas into my garden under the cover of night." And Mendel smote table in righteous wrath, saying "Depart from me, you curded and evil peas, into the outer darkness where thou shalt be devoured by the rats and mice," and lo it was done and there remained 300 round peas and 100 wrinkled peas and it was good. It was very, very good. And Mendel published.
--------------------------------------------------------

 

[kanabco]

Nope, people who really search for truth!

Look at Tesla!

Look at ho wmany patents!

Then see how may peer-reviews!: 0




Hmmmmmm that is saying something about peer preview, it is a political thing.

It has turned into something like that. AGW for example has alarmist and deniers misusing peer review almost every day. Politics it seems can make a bigot of anyone.

 

[kanabco]

Why oh why do people take 'scientists'so damned seriously?????????????????????????????

It is so hurtful to me to read this and understand exactly what you are meaning.

 

[Threegoofs]

As does a deep bias. I will never allow one to tell me something and accept it simply because they say I should (pro tip). If that were the case I could probably rule your thoughts simply by stating quite factually, that I should know based based on the fact that, "I have been doing this professionally for more than half a century". See what I mean? The depth of anyone's understanding on a blog or forums is always suspect and in fact the reason I started this thread to begin with.

True.

But the depth of people's understanding when they are recognized experts is not suspect.

And when a bunch of them get together to tell you that chemical you have is toxic, you probably are right to believe them.

 

[CriticalThought]

"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.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. 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. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

From humble and idealistic beginnings a decade ago, open-access scientific journals have mushroomed into a global industry, driven by author publication fees rather than traditional subscriptions. Most of the players are murky. The identity and location of the journals' editors, as well as the financial workings of their publishers, are often purposefully obscured. But Science's investigation casts a powerful light. Internet Protocol (IP) address traces within the raw headers of e-mails sent by journal editors betray their locations. Invoices for publication fees reveal a network of bank accounts based mostly in the developing world. And the acceptances and rejections of the paper provide the first global snapshot of peer review across the open-access scientific enterprise."

---Science 04 Oct 2013
---link Who's Afraid of Peer Review? | Science

The sad thing is the article is more than two years old and the number of open access journals has quadrupled today. Anyone can start one and anything can be published in one and all will believe as actual research because it is peer reviews which is is not.
https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/01/02/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2015/ which does not mean they are all predatory journals OR that they are set up to fool the small minded. But fooling is what they do. Especially if the subject has a political end. I find it much harder to do research today even with so much more info out there because I have to study more deeply trying to unearth spoofs.

I have been fooled more than once.

We are in such an age that it has come time to peer review the peer review.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=1]Another peer reviewed science failure[/h]From the Ed Begley Jr. department: “If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Ed. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes…
Continue reading →

 

[Pin dÁr]

And how about this:

Dr. Marcia Angell, the editor of New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote the following:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009)

That's saying a lot!

 

[Northern Light]

Do people not understand the meaning of "discernment" these days? Nobody ever in the history of research claimed that all research is trustworthy and free of flaws. Humans create it, after all.

A few things to remember...

There are certain journals which have a higher degree of trust because they are longstanding and their criteria for publication are rigorous. Still, not foolproof, but higher. Anyone can create a new journal, but why should we value something with no tradition of rigorous review?

To discern good research you need be trained to do so, or just have a really keen interest in it. There is good and bad research. In order to get at the truth or some kind of middle ground, you need to look at multiple sources and fact check. It doesn't matter which journal it is, this is basic research methodology.

To claim that all academia is corrupt is a ridiculous argument. There are many higher level institutions that still value the tradition of research. Yes there are always going to be funding motives and other agendas. That's why looking at who funded research is important in drawing your conclusions.

So rather than declaring it all as bunk in such a black and white way, put on your critical thinking cap and stop crying that you aren't being spoonfed pristine information. The onus is just as much as you as it is on them to draw worthwhile conclusions.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Peer review could be a great tool to use if the parties involved could avoid the politics and check their ego's at the front door.

 

[Pin dÁr]

Do people not understand the meaning of "discernment" these days? Nobody ever in the history of research claimed that all research is trustworthy and free of flaws. Humans create it, after all.

A few things to remember...

There are certain journals which have a higher degree of trust because they are longstanding and their criteria for publication are rigorous. Still, not foolproof, but higher. Anyone can create a new journal, but why should we value something with no tradition of rigorous review?

To discern good research you need be trained to do so, or just have a really keen interest in it. There is good and bad research. In order to get at the truth or some kind of middle ground, you need to look at multiple sources and fact check. It doesn't matter which journal it is, this is basic research methodology.

To claim that all academia is corrupt is a ridiculous argument. There are many higher level institutions that still value the tradition of research. Yes there are always going to be funding motives and other agendas. That's why looking at who funded research is important in drawing your conclusions.

So rather than declaring it all as bunk in such a black and white way, put on your critical thinking cap and stop crying that you aren't being spoonfed pristine information. The onus is just as much as you as it is on them to draw worthwhile conclusions.

There was a time I would have agreed with you, but not any longer.
Yes, I see 'science' as bunk and a lot of lies.corrupt to it's core.


It is a control tool. that is what it really is.You are speaking of 'trust'. However this trust is really misused.
I really think people should stop listeing to 'scientist' and think for themselves.
Of course you can use some of their propaganda. But don't do it on faith.

Most of the things in 'science' are very wrong and/or skewed a certain way and deliberatly so.



Actually it is a kind of religion.

 

[Northern Light]

There was a time I would have agreed with you, but not any longer.
Yes, I see 'science' as bunk and a lot of lies.corrupt to it's core.


It is a control tool. that is what it really is.You are speaking of 'trust'. However this trust is really misused.
I really think people should stop listeing to 'scientist' and think for themselves.
Of course you can use some of their propaganda. But don't do it on faith.

Most of the things in 'science' are very wrong and/or skewed a certain way and deliberatly so.



Actually it is a kind of religion.

Can you give examples? You're being a bit vague in your accusations.

I see science manipulated by the mainstream media, but that's the media. A lot of news articles that are based on scientific research can have their flaws easily pointed out once you go back to the original scientific publication. But if you're claiming that the research ITSELF is corrupt, I would like some proof of that.

There is a trend of anti-intellectualism sweeping the western world and it's mostly based in the politics of fear and marginalization. People are looking for enemies to explain their woes and science, as an institution, has become one of their targets.

There's no denying that funded research can have biases because of who provides the funding, but not all research and peer review works that way. In fact I'd say most doesn't.

 

[kanabco]

True.

But the depth of people's understanding when they are recognized experts is not suspect.

And when a bunch of them get together to tell you that chemical you have is toxic, you probably are right to believe them.

Sorry to get all down here but which/who/what does "they" mean? Are you referring to the experts that publish? the average poster here? yourself?
Also how are you using "recognized"? That can be a very large dose of subjectivity in my view.

I am not being coy... really I am not, but with apologizes to Descartes, "[scientific assuredness] is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess" This I have found to be the universal mantra of too many scientists though I doubt they recognize they are thinking in this way.

So no I do not subscribe that scientific accuracy is derived from that largest number of recognized experts. My tag line explains my view on this.

 

[kanabco]

[h=1]Another peer reviewed science failure[/h]From the Ed Begley Jr. department: “If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Ed. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies is the key words. And if it comes…
Continue reading →

Thanks for that link.

 

[kanabco]

And how about this:



That's saying a lot!

Just don't give up on science... it was not the dedicated-to-the-truth "real" scientist that brought this on. Real scientists, believe it or not, love to be proven wrong and will often give researchers suggested methods to do just that.

 

[kanabco]

Do people not understand the meaning of "discernment" these days?

Scientists probably do but researchers, bloggers, and posters seem not to these days.

 

[kanabco]

I see science manipulated by the mainstream media, but that's the media.

Bingo