Peer review is meant to weed out junk science before it reaches publication. Yet over and over again in our survey, respondents told us this process fails. It was one of the parts of the scientific machinery to elicit the most rage among the researchers we heard from.
Publishing: The peer-review scam
When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.
Most journal editors know how much effort it takes to persuade busy researchers to review a paper. That is why the editor of The Journal of Enzyme Inhibition and Medicinal Chemistry was puzzled by the reviews for manuscripts by one author — Hyung-In Moon, a medicinal-plant researcher then at Dongguk University in Gyeongju, South Korea.
In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran's journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers. So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.
How fake peer review happens: An impersonated reviewer speaks
Earlier this month, BioMed Central and Springer announced that they were retracting nearly 60 papers for a host of related issues, including manipulating the peer-review process.
Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals? Darwinists use a similar rule—I call it “Catch-23”—to exclude intelligent design from science: intelligent design is not scientific, so it can’t be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. How
do we know it’s not scientific? Because it isn’t published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Catch-23!
In desperation to maintain the "No god needed" ideology, the faith is supported and filled in by the "No god needed" crowd with unproven hypothesis and theories with fancy language laced with qualifiers such as "possible", "might" and maybe, among others, and it's EXPECTED to be ACCEPTED as gospel. Science says this or that, via "peer reviewed sources", or websites that are held as unquestionable authority, like talkorigins, or authorities, like Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchen, et al. You actually think that's any different than "The bible says, or God says" this or that? Your faith is just as strong, if not stronger, than the faith of the believer, and based on those peer reviewed sources or websites that propose evolution, you base and express your values and principles. No different than the bible believing Christian. That is faith. That is a religion. Just because you either can't see it or are too proud to admit it, it's fact. Atheists try to prove what they don't believe with the enthusiasm of a believer. How much sense makes that ?
Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper
Want a favorable peer review? Buy one
What do Henry Kissinger and Martin Scorsese have in common? Fun fact: Both evidently review scientific manuscripts for money.
OK, maybe that’s not quite true. In fact, it’s not at all true. But headshots of both men appear in the bios of two purported reviewers (one of which has a woman’s name, sorry, Martin!) for a company called EditPub that sells various scientific services, including peer reviews.
ACADEMIC ABSURDITY OF THE WEEK: FAKE PEER REVIEWS
the actors involved in the publishing process are often driven by incentives which may, and increasingly do, undermine the quality of published work, especially in the presence of unethical conduits.
Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper.Public Library of Science, PLOS ONE, was the only journal that called attention to the paper's potential ethical problems and consequently rejected it within 2 weeks.
Meanwhile, 45% of Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) publishers that completed the review process, accepted the paper, a statistic that DOAJ founder Lars Bjørnshauge, a library scientist at Lund University in Sweden, finds "hard to believe".
The hoax raises concerns about poor quality control and the 'gold' open access model. It also calls attention to the growing number of low-quality open access publishers, especially in the developing world. In his investigation, Bohannon came across 29 publishers which seemed to have derelict websites and disguised geographical locations.
Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust. A major question, which I will return to, is whether peer review and journals should cease to work on trust.
The evidence on whether there is bias in peer review against certain sorts of authors is conflicting, but there is strong evidence of bias against women in the process of awarding grants.5 The most famous piece of evidence on bias against authors comes from a study by DP Peters and SJ Ceci.6 They took 12 studies that came from prestigious institutions that had already been published in psychology journals. They retyped the papers, made minor changes to the titles, abstracts, and introductions but changed the authors' names and institutions. They invented institutions with names like the Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential. The papers were then resubmitted to the journals that had first published them. In only three cases did the journals realize that they had already published the paper, and eight of the remaining nine were rejected—not because of lack of originality but because of poor quality. Peters and Ceci concluded that this was evidence of bias against authors from less prestigious institutions.
all the academics say we’ve got to have peer review. But I don’t believe in peer review because I think it’s very distorted and as I’ve said, it’s simply a regression to the mean. I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals. Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organisations making money out of it.
It may not be entirely fair to liken a "peer review and citation ring" to the academic version of an extortion ring, but there's certainly fraud involved in both. Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to chronicling which academic papers have been withdrawn, is reporting that SAGE Publishing, a group that puts out numerous peer-reviewed journals, is retracting 60 papers from its Journal of Vibration and Control after an internal investigation uncovered extensive evidence of severe peer-review fraud.
Apparently researcher Peter Chen, formerly of National Pingtung University of Education in Taiwan, made multiple submission and reviewer accounts -- possibly along with other researchers at his institution or elsewhere -- so that he could influence the peer review system. When Chen or someone else from the ring submitted a paper, the group could manipulate who reviewed the research, and on at least one occasion Chen served as his own reviewer.
90% of peer-reviewed clinical research is completely false
…Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable. That article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
In a science such as evolution, the only thing its scientists and scientific writers can do is make information up; use their imagination. They present this imaginary information as if it isn’t made up; as if it’s real science. Such is the case with evolution’s peer reviewed papers. There is no answer as to how life came to be; or living cells; or any biological systems; not even bird nests. But evolution’s paper writers go on as if they do have the answer. Evolution science writers write paper after paper. They are peer reviewed and passed. Many peer reviewers are paper writers themselves. They pass one imaginary paper in hopes that their imaginary paper will be passed. One paper piles on top of another, until there is an immense pile of papers. For over one hundred and fifty years evolution’s papers have been stacking up. The writing, even though it is mostly imagination, is then quoted as if it’s real evidence.
Peer Review = Appeal to Authority
"Evolution" includes many theories.Some of them have been found to be likely true.Some have been found to be surely false.All such theories have included many important assumptions or presumptions,such as the presumption that radio carbon dating is very accurate,and that giant gaps in the fossil records can reasonably be filled by speculation.
Theories of Evolution exist.Facts regarding Evolution exist.Most theories of Evolution arise from facts and lots of speculation.Just because something is speculative does NOT mean it is false."Evolution is a fact" is a rather poorly supported premise.That's because facts and theories are not the same things,and "Evolution" is a theory.
I suspect that many fools,many who have been granted the PhD by other demonstrable fools,would claim boldly that "Evolution is a fact."They'd be wrong.
Scientific Publisher BioMed Central has withdrawn 43 papers, and is investigating many more, over what it calls the “fabrication” of peer reviews. Representatives of Journal editors have admitted the papers are the tip of a dangerous iceberg, and the scandal may to lead to an overhaul of how peer review is conducted.
Peer review is fundamental to science, a central part of the process of self-correction that sets it aside from faith-based systems. True peer review does not end with publication; plenty of scientific papers are published only to subsequently be shown to have major flaws. However, the initial process whereby editors of scientific publications send work, usually anonymized, to other researchers for checking is meant to filter out the worst mistakes.
Last edited by Admin on Sun Jan 22, 2017 7:48 am; edited 27 times in total