Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Journal of Vibration and Control, a peer-reviewed professional journal, withdraws 60 articles because a "peer-review ring" was conspiring to get articles published. But peer-review CAN'T be corrupt. Sound familiar?   ( theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

900 clicks; posted to Geek » on 11 Jul 2014 at 8:46 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-11 12:45:40 AM  
Sounds like you're all shook up about it.
 
2014-07-11 01:11:52 AM  
Totes legit.
 
2014-07-11 01:12:10 AM  
Academic journal retracts articles over 'peer review ring' with
"bogus scholars"

Uncomfortably familiar, Deniers?
 
2014-07-11 01:15:39 AM  
img.fark.net

It never ceases to amaze me that people seriously think that scientists, looking to keep that sweet research money coming in, have nearly unanimously chosen to skew their research results against the people with the money. It's astounding.
 
2014-07-11 01:50:49 AM  
So I guess you didn't read to the part where they retracted all the involved articles, the one guy running the whole scam was exposed and forced out of his job, and the editor of the journal involved resigned?  It was like the third paragraph.

But yeah, this proves all of science is bullshiat.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-11 01:58:10 AM  
Sex toys?

/dnrtfa
 
2014-07-11 07:52:02 AM  
Not can't, it's less likely.
 
2014-07-11 08:15:41 AM  
So, if the mere whiff of some sort of corruption taints the entire panoply of science, does this mean that banking and finance get the same treatment? Or is that just "different"?

skinnycatullus: [img.fark.net image 236x174]

It never ceases to amaze me that people seriously think that scientists, looking to keep that sweet research money coming in, have nearly unanimously chosen to skew their research results against the people with the money. It's astounding.


Look at how long it took to get folks on board that lead in...well...damn near everything, was a bad idea. Not just the gasoline industry, but across the board. It took years and an overwhelming amount of evidence that lead levels across the globe were increasing exponentially--to the point, where ice cores had to be dredged up, because the contamination was so widespread and so pervasive that you couldn't find an untainted sample damn near anywhere across the globe thanks to just the engines that got folks there in the first place. There WAS a vast conspiracy to keep the evidence out, and it took 50 years of concerted effort to finally get legislation, and somehow, we've not imploded our gas industry or any of the horrible effects that the oil industry claimed if we stopped using lead as a fuel additive, but we have seen a drop in lead levels, we have seen a drop in lead related illnesses. 50 years. And that was with lead. Which we KNOW is not good for handing out for teething rings. Something that has long term effects, and doesn't necessarily result in immediate DOOOOOOOM! and you've got folks who figure that they'll be dead long before the bill comes due, and if their kids survive it, then they'll be stronger for it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-11 08:43:48 AM  
So the lesson is that you can't get away with bad science even in an obscure journal like Vibration and Control?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-07-11 08:44:29 AM  
hubiestubert:

Look at how long it took to get folks on board that lead in...well...damn near everything, was a bad idea. Not just the gasoline industry, but across the board. It took years and an overwhelming amount of evidence that lead levels across the globe were increasing exponentially--to the point, where ice cores had to be dredged up, because the contamination was so widespread and so pervasive that you couldn't find an untainted sample damn near anywhere across the globe thanks to just the engines that got folks there in the first place. There WAS a vast conspiracy to keep the evidence out, and it took 50 years of concerted effort to finally get legislation, and somehow, we've not imploded our gas industry or any of the horrible effects that the oil industry claimed if we stopped using lead as a fuel additive, but we have seen a drop in lead levels, we have seen a drop in lead related illnesses. 50 years. And that was with lead. Which we KNOW is not good for handing out for teething rings. Something that has long term effects, and doesn't necessarily result in immediate DOOOOOOOM! and you've got folks who figure that they'll be dead long before the bill comes due, and if their kids survive it, then they'll be stronger for it.

Yes, but now we are dependent on China for our lead teething rings.
 
2014-07-11 08:48:35 AM  
A doctor once committed malpractice, so according to the laws of derp, all doctors have committed malpractice.
 
2014-07-11 08:54:53 AM  
uh... not / Geek \
                               ... belongs in / Politics \

article is clearly about Congress.
 
2014-07-11 08:56:50 AM  
vibrationandcontrol.tumblr.com

sounds NSFW
 
2014-07-11 08:57:12 AM  
No one with half a brain has ever claimed that peer review is a  perfect system. It has a lot of flaws. It is, however, a minimum standard for keeping crap out of publication. It can be gamed, as this article shows. It can suppress outsider ideas. It can succumb to the same sorts of politics that crop up in any other endeavor. Bad papers can still clear the peer review bar.

Peer review is not a standard for truth. It's a standard for "the people behind this did work of sufficient quality that we shouldn't dismiss this as bullshiat out of hand."
 
2014-07-11 09:01:18 AM  
So one guy engages in fraud and is caught after 4 years.

Just shows how good the climate scientists have been to not get caught for 60 years!!
 
2014-07-11 09:10:39 AM  
Actually the fact the journal caught on and responded properly shows that journals actually are legit.
 
2014-07-11 09:14:44 AM  
cdn.memegenerator.net
 
2014-07-11 09:18:13 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Actually the fact the journal caught on and responded properly shows that journals actually are legit.


...as opposed to financial journals that seem immune to such ethics reviews. But hey, that's different in most folks' minds...
 
2014-07-11 09:19:04 AM  

hubiestubert: So, if the mere whiff of some sort of corruption taints the entire panoply of science, does this mean that banking and finance get the same treatment? Or is that just "different"?

skinnycatullus: [img.fark.net image 236x174]

It never ceases to amaze me that people seriously think that scientists, looking to keep that sweet research money coming in, have nearly unanimously chosen to skew their research results against the people with the money. It's astounding.

Look at how long it took to get folks on board that lead in...well...damn near everything, was a bad idea. Not just the gasoline industry, but across the board. It took years and an overwhelming amount of evidence that lead levels across the globe were increasing exponentially--to the point, where ice cores had to be dredged up, because the contamination was so widespread and so pervasive that you couldn't find an untainted sample damn near anywhere across the globe thanks to just the engines that got folks there in the first place. There WAS a vast conspiracy to keep the evidence out, and it took 50 years of concerted effort to finally get legislation, and somehow, we've not imploded our gas industry or any of the horrible effects that the oil industry claimed if we stopped using lead as a fuel additive, but we have seen a drop in lead levels, we have seen a drop in lead related illnesses. 50 years. And that was with lead. Which we KNOW is not good for handing out for teething rings. Something that has long term effects, and doesn't necessarily result in immediate DOOOOOOOM! and you've got folks who figure that they'll be dead long before the bill comes due, and if their kids survive it, then they'll be stronger for it.


That was my favorite Cosmos episode due to the massive parallels with climate change.
 
2014-07-11 09:24:44 AM  

t3knomanser: Peer review is not a standard for truth. It's a standard for "the people behind this did work of sufficient quality that we shouldn't dismiss this as bullshiat out of hand."


It's basically an expert-level version of "seems legit."

Obviously reviewers have neither the time nor the resources to replicate every experiment in a paper (which usually represents years of work).  But they can screen out work with obvious errors in experimental design, interpretation, statistical analysis, etc.

If you want to invent results of of whole cloth and are smart enough to make it look convincing to an expert reviewer, you can do it.  It's happened before.  Peer review isn't a foolproof system to catch such things.  But then what usually happens is someone else trying to build on that result finds they can't reproduce those published results, which leads to more people trying and failing to reproduce the results, which leads eventually to an investigation and retraction, which leads to the fraudster ending their career in disgrace.  This is another failsafe in the system, and the way it is supposed to work.
 
2014-07-11 09:27:31 AM  
Why's everybody jumping on subby like this? Maybe he's not a climate change denier, maybe he's a gravity denier or a flat-earther. You ever think of that? Maybe he's just pointing out that this (exposed) fraud proves that antibiotics don't really work and we all need to seriously reconsider the curative merits of healing crystals and virgin sacrifice.

/ Teach the controversy!
// something something joke about signal to noise ratio of other journals...
 
2014-07-11 09:34:26 AM  
Well I can see that many have sufficiently responded to <b>submitters</b> trolltastic headline. Only thing I would add that issues like this are exceedingly rare as well. Just in PubMed, which only indexes the Life Sciences (and not all journals in that field) there are about 500,000 new entries added every year. That's a lot of publications.

By the time you factor in things like people's perceptions within a field of a particular journal's standards and merit, plus peer-review, plus post-publication peer-review (formal or informal), etc... the whole thing works pretty damned well for a human endeavour. It isn't perfect but it is pretty good.
 
2014-07-11 09:37:14 AM  

dookdookdook: But yeah, this proves all of science is bullshiat.


Is that the claim, or are you just using hyperbole as obfuscation?
 
2014-07-11 09:41:16 AM  

Doc Daneeka: Obviously reviewers have neither the time nor the resources to replicate every experiment in a paper (which usually represents years of work).  But they can screen out work with obvious errors in experimental design, interpretation, statistical analysis, etc.

If you want to invent results of of whole cloth and are smart enough to make it look convincing to an expert reviewer, you can do it.  It's happened before.  Peer review isn't a foolproof system to catch such things.  But then what usually happens is someone else trying to build on that result finds they can't reproduce those published results, which leads to more people trying and failing to reproduce the results, which leads eventually to an investigation and retraction, which leads to the fraudster ending their career in disgrace.  This is another failsafe in the system, and the way it is supposed to work.


This. Peer review is not a system that is designed to catch adversaries- i.e. people who are trying break the peer review system. It's designed to build scientific consensus about what is true.

One of my proudest moments was when my (negative) result was replicated in a second paper. It was a queer little performance anomaly in a specialized version of Linux, which I couldn't explain, but was definitely present in some performance results. It got published (as a part of a much larger work), and when I presented the work at a conference I had two distinguished Linux experts tell me that I must have done something wrong, in front of the entire conference, and all I could say was that this is what I measured, and I was confident I measured it correctly, and I couldn't explain it.

About a year later, a second paper came out by another group (with a much stronger operating-systems background), and tucked away on one of their graphs they found the same performance anomaly, and justified it in their paper by citing my paper. So I might have done it wrong, but even if I did, I'm not the only one who did it wrong.

The moral of the story- my paper got published and because I was honest about all the shortcomings of my research we're able to build a scientific consensus that contradicts the established thought on the performance of this particular mechanism in Linux. Now, if those Linux experts stand up and tell someone else that they must have done something wrong, they can reply by saying that two papers by independent groups have confirmed this performance anomaly, and there's no expert in the world that's going to hand-wave that away. The peer-review process works.
 
2014-07-11 09:44:05 AM  

skinnycatullus: [img.fark.net image 236x174]

It never ceases to amaze me that people seriously think that scientists, looking to keep that sweet research money coming in, have nearly unanimously chosen to skew their research results against the people with the money. It's astounding.


what if didn't matter the source of the funding for the information.  can't we just compare information?

/ not a defense or support of anyone.  and, i do believe there are vested interests creating biases.  so, there is probably a way to overcome those biases.  keep researching, publishing, and letting the sides fight it out.  regardless of the biases, the antagonism will eventually hone something closer to the truth.  it's not like science is completely in a day anyways.  and, it's not like there's any truth anyways.  we just get to something predictable enough to move forward.
// unfortunately, we're spending a lot more time on trying to say there is a problem, and much less time on alternatives/solutions.  granted, if there is no problem, there are no solutions, but there are alternatives.  say carbon emissions are actually the best thing on earth and the only reason anyone is alive today.  well, that doesn't mean we still can't invent a cleaner car or source of power (because it could be more efficient, cheaper, something) or that there aren't other reasons why fossil fuels are not a long term solution.
 
2014-07-11 09:48:34 AM  

DoctorOfLove: [cdn.memegenerator.net image 250x250]


"Waaaah, I hate people telling me I'm wrong because I understand jack shiat. Stop telling me I'm wrong because my ideas are about as scientifically viable as as geocentrism."

There is no way in which global warming denial is anything other than a refuge for anti-science incompetents.  Congrats on being a whiny baby about it, but that doesn't make you not retarded.
 
2014-07-11 09:53:11 AM  

vpb: So the lesson is that you can't get away with bad science even in an obscure journal like Vibration and Control?


That's my take-away. Not sure why that would be especially controversial, either.

{shrug}
 
2014-07-11 10:06:00 AM  

s2s2s2: dookdookdook: But yeah, this proves all of science is bullshiat.

Is that the claim, or are you just using hyperbole as obfuscation?


Being deliberately thick today?

The implied claim is that this tiny conspiracy proves it's possible for 99% of climate scientists to all be in on one giant conspiracy.

Unless there's some other high-profile war on science that's been raging recently that I haven't heard of.
 
2014-07-11 10:06:36 AM  

s2s2s2: Is that the claim, or are you just using hyperbole as obfuscation?


It seems like a perfectly on-level retort considering the quality of the headline that prompted it. Are you angry that he limited himself to the intellectual rigor of the submitter instead of staking out higher ground (which, admittedly, would have required little more than a step stool with a single run) or do you have some other point you're trying to imply instead of just saying what you want to say?
 
2014-07-11 10:06:42 AM  

dookdookdook: So I guess you didn't read to the part where they retracted all the involved articles, the one guy running the whole scam was exposed and forced out of his job, and the editor of the journal involved resigned?  It was like the third paragraph.

But yeah, this proves all of science is bullshiat.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 250x167]


And thus Sarah Palin is now president and has decreed a huge WELCOME HOME JESUS mat be put on
the south lawn of the Whitehouse, laid out by a bunch of illegals who will then be summarily sent back to
Hispanicstan in lieu of payment.
 
2014-07-11 10:09:48 AM  
Wow, climate change derp overwhelms fark's jokes even in a thread about vibration and control journals, which should be just a bunch of pictures of hot lesbians pushing the boundaries of teledildonics.
 
2014-07-11 10:10:34 AM  

dookdookdook: s2s2s2: dookdookdook: But yeah, this proves all of science is bullshiat.

Is that the claim, or are you just using hyperbole as obfuscation?

Being deliberately thick today?

The implied claim is that this tiny conspiracy proves it's possible for 99% of climate scientists to all be in on one giant conspiracy.

Unless there's some other high-profile war on science that's been raging recently that I haven't heard of.


There are plenty of fronts in the war on science. Pretty much anything that disagrees with the Derp Old Party.
This one, according to you, is about one front, not "all of science".

Anywhoo, "asked and answered"

/tips fedora
 
2014-07-11 10:13:20 AM  

skozlaw: Are you angry


No

skozlaw: do you have some other point you're trying to imply instead of just saying what you want to say?


No

Ancient Proverb: Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.

Of course, the next one is, Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
 
2014-07-11 10:14:30 AM  
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted, is an example of "argument from authority".  The problem is peer review is more or less a back slapping joke.  not much authority to argue from.
 
2014-07-11 10:17:25 AM  

Fano: Wow, climate change derp overwhelms fark's jokes even in a thread about vibration and control journals, which should be just a bunch of pictures of hot lesbians pushing the boundaries of teledildonics.


I'm still giggling over the name Vibration and Control and these dweebs and wastoids are arguing science.
 
2014-07-11 10:19:59 AM  

Doc Daneeka: If you want to invent results of of whole cloth and are smart enough to make it look convincing to an expert reviewer, you can do it.  It's happened before.  Peer review isn't a foolproof system to catch such things.  But then what usually happens is someone else trying to build on that result finds they can't reproduce those published results, which leads to more people trying and failing to reproduce the results, which leads eventually to an investigation and retraction, which leads to the fraudster ending their career in disgrace.  This is another failsafe in the system, and the way it is supposed to work.


I'll add to that that the reputation of the journal is also on the line in cases like this. People in the field of acoustic science are going to be less likely to trust studies from the Journal of Vibration and Control now. A journal with a very strong reputation (eg; the New England Journal of Medicine) is incredibly rigorous about its peer review process because that reputation is very valuable to them and they don't want to endanger it.

Also, a lot of the recent fraudulent science has come out of fairly crappy universities that have only been established recently in China, India, and (in this case) Taiwan. It's a problem that will resolve itself in a few more years when either those universities improve and become more concerned with their reputation or journals learn to become more suspicious of them
 
2014-07-11 10:21:20 AM  

DoctorOfLove: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted, is an example of "argument from authority".  The problem is peer review is more or less a back slapping joke.  not much authority to argue from.


And this is hardly the first example of peer review being shown to be nothing more than rubber-stamping by people who already agree with the conclusions they are "reviewing".

Does that mean science is somehow discredited? Absolutely not.
Does credible peer review mean the science is correct? Also no.
 
2014-07-11 10:24:45 AM  

DoctorOfLove: To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted, is an example of "argument from authority"


You're really kicking the crap outta that strawman.

DoctorOfLove: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

The problem is peer review is more or less a back slapping joke.  not much authority to argue from.


Peer review can be great or terrible or anywhere inbetween - it's entirely dependent on the quality of the journal. A shiatty journal that rubber-stamps shiatty studies won't be trusted by knowledgeable people in the industry. A good journal with a solid peer-review process will be trusted.

This is how science works. If you have something better to replace it with, please let us know.
 
2014-07-11 10:32:07 AM  

hubiestubert: So, if the mere whiff of some sort of corruption taints the entire panoply of science, does this mean that banking and finance get the same treatment? Or is that just "different"?


Who at this point doesn't think 'banking and finance' are giant, corrupt, pointless, shiat-fest-circle-jerk games designed specifically and explicitly to to nothing more or less than exploit the middle and lower class?  How do they 'get a pass'?  Aside from being a secure location to store my cash, I wouldn't trust a bank if it told me the sky was blue while I was standing outside with 16 different color swatches and a spectrum analyzer.
 
2014-07-11 10:40:30 AM  

DoctorOfLove: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted, is an example of "argument from authority".  The problem is peer review is more or less a back slapping joke.  not much authority to argue from.


Better than choosing to be an ignorant degenerate who looks for any excuse to justify outright absurd beliefs without any sort of validation mechanism.  It's not that hard to not be willfully ignorant.

There is no scienceon your side.  None.  Period. You can pretend there is because it makes you feel better about how unjustifiably stupid you're being, but it doesn't make you anything other than a moron who's too stupid to understand that they're a moron.
 
2014-07-11 10:45:09 AM  
So, like Digg?
 
2014-07-11 10:45:50 AM  

DoctorOfLove: [cdn.memegenerator.net image 250x250]


I guess you missed the part where further peer review caught this ring of cheaters.


Please, continue....
 
2014-07-11 10:51:26 AM  

SpectroBoy: DoctorOfLove: [cdn.memegenerator.net image 250x250]

I guess you missed the part where further peer review caught this ring of cheaters.


Please, continue....


They don't get that it makes them look like the stupidist farkers on the planet when they post these things.  There is no treatment for the level of ingrained paranoia that their brains have developed.  I try outright hostility, because reason doesn't work.

I'm not sure that works either.  But they're broken people.

As an aside, my working hypothesis is that the conspiratorially damaged mind, ironically enough, comes from a marginally too low threshold for evidence.  They see literal coincidences as trends, patterns to be incorporated into their thinking.  And not consciously, either.  Pattern recognition is at the root of human intelligence, and they just lack the component that rejects new patterns.
 
2014-07-11 10:59:02 AM  

DoctorOfLove: To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted,


Yeah, no one says that.
 
2014-07-11 10:59:55 AM  

qorkfiend: DoctorOfLove: To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted,

Yeah, no one says that.


The Global Warmist(R) fanatics say it all the time.  But but it's peer reviewed!!!
 
2014-07-11 11:01:09 AM  
Hmmmm...a corpus of knowledge, with a procedure in place to make sure the knowledge embodied within is accurate, and when that mechanism is corrupted it's detected, dealt with, and the erroneous information removed...yes, that does sound familiar. It sound like what happens with the Bible. You know, how when new facts are discovered like pi is not equal to three, or the world isn't flat, or the universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago, or because there's already enough people it's no longer necessary to be fruitful and multiply, the Committee of Elders goes and just removes the incorrect sections of the Bible, and that's why today the Bible has been pretty much boiled down to one sentence ("Be excellent to each other.")

Oh wait, no, that totally doesn't happen. Huh. Weird.
 
2014-07-11 11:02:29 AM  

DoctorOfLove: The Global Warmist(R) fanatics say it all the time. But but it's peer reviewed!!!


No, we say that you have jack shiat with any kind of credibility.

Or are you trying to make the argument that peer review makes things less credible?
 
2014-07-11 11:14:03 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Hmmmm...a corpus of knowledge, with a procedure in place to make sure the knowledge embodied within is accurate, and when that mechanism is corrupted it's detected, dealt with, and the erroneous information removed...yes, that does sound familiar. It sound like what happens with the Bible. You know, how when new facts are discovered like pi is not equal to three, or the world isn't flat, or the universe wasn't created 6,000 years ago, or because there's already enough people it's no longer necessary to be fruitful and multiply, the Committee of Elders goes and just removes the incorrect sections of the Bible, and that's why today the Bible has been pretty much boiled down to one sentence ("Be excellent to each other.")

Oh wait, no, that totally doesn't happen. Huh. Weird.


[Elaborate hat tip]

Party on, Prank.
 
2014-07-11 11:20:29 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Actually the fact the journal caught on and responded properly shows that journals actually are legit.


Exactly.  Some authors were pulling crap, and the journal itself caught them and corrected the error.  Science is self correcting.

Why was I not surprised when it turned out the BS was coming from east Asia?
 
2014-07-11 11:21:59 AM  

DoctorOfLove: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals


To say something is peer reviewed, and therefore can't be doubted, is an example of "argument from authority".  The problem is peer review is more or less a back slapping joke.  not much authority to argue from.



In a given academic circle, the "peer review process" is a very well defined step that occurs between submitting a paper for publication and having it accepted for publication. For example, if you got together fifty leading scientists in machine learning (a subfield of computer science) they could not only tell you exactly what the peer review process is, they could tell you very specifically the two or three times per year that it happens. Now, that specific process probably looks very different than if you were to get fifty leading scientists in environmental chemistry (a subfield of chemistry), but *that* group of fifty scientists could give you a very well actualized definition of what peer review is to them.

The point is, there is no universal standard for what *peer review* is across all of science, but rather each scientific community has their own standards. That doesn't mean that some fields are more rigorous than others, it merely means that the practitioners of different fields have found separate processes that seem to yield the best result within their field.

But, the author of your link seems to be focusing on the wrong thing. Essentially, his criticisms concern the best method for a journal to get the highest quality publications. His point of view is understandable, but it seriously confuses the issues at hand. The point of peer review is not to produce high quality journal papers, the point of peer review is to provide a way to determine scientific truth. In this sense, peer review is NOT guaranteed to do the following: produce error-free or accurate papers, provide the general public with any guarantee of correctness, or prevent fraud in the process. However, peer review does do one thing very well- the people at the top of the field can judge ongoing scientific work and determine it's worthiness in an accurate manner.

Ultimately, the people who matter will be able to look at the work, and decide whether or not the research is worthwhile. These people then go off and incorporate those research ideas into their own work, and quickly figure out how they do in practice. Over time, successful research ideas will persist, and unsuccessful ones will disappear. At the end of the day, the people who matter the most- the ones who direct funding and research, and the ones who build and certify scientific products for public consumption, get the information they need and the ideas are assessed appropriately.

What this doesn't mean is that a published paper automatically implies scientific canon. This seems to be the crucial disconnect between the media/general public and the scientific community. For a scientific idea, passing the peer review process for publication is the *first* step along a long path to general consensus, it is not the last. This puts peer review in its original, organic place: in a world where many people were writing far more papers than anyone had time to read, it was originally a way for scientists to select what papers are most deserving of the community's attention. Publication means that your ideas have a chance to compete, not that they are suddenly enshrined as scientific fact.

I'll leave you with two final thoughts. First is this: the competitive journals and conferences at the top of a scientific field will usually accept 10-20% of their submitted papers for publication. While that 10-20% that passed the peer review process might be flawed, I can guarantee from experience that the 80-90% that got rejected are almost always rejected for good reasons. This doesn't mean that the top 20% are right, but the bottom 80% are obviously wrong- this is the point of peer review in literature- to bring competitive ideas to market. The second thought it is this: I haven't seen a good alternative to peer review that doesn't require the huge investment of time of unrelated experts. If you tried to publish every paper, the good papers would be drowned out by the hundreds of bad ones. If you tried have everyone review every paper there simply wouldn't be enough hours in the day (given that a good conference might receive between 100 and 500 papers in a cycle, and it takes two or so hours to do a good review). If you tried to do an open review process, where anyone can comment on papers if they choose, then the system would open itself up to deliberate manipulation.
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report