Cebu_4_2
5th March 2014, 08:51 AM
"Peer Reviewed"? Baloney. (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3349503)
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker)
2014-03-04 06:00 by Karl Denninger (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?email-send=genesis)
in Editorial (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&page=1&cat=Editorial) , 247 references (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228825#) http://market-ticker.org/smilies/ignore.gif (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?ignore_thread=228825)
"Peer Reviewed"? Baloney.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=87 Oh really? (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/01/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/)
Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.
So what that they were pulled?
That's not the issue. The issue is that all of these journals claim to peer-review submissions. That is, they send them out to acknowledged "experts" in the given field for reading and comment -- and that happens before they're published.
Obviously that process is not actually happening despite the claims.
Now here's the problem: If even one such paper gets into publication after being sent out to alleged members of a given profession then it is proof that the so-called "review" system doesn't really exist; either the paper was flagged as bogus but published anyway or the entire process, whether it allegedly takes place or not, is ignored.
This importance of this finding cannot be overstated. Peer-reviewed journals are one of the bedrock foundations on which all sorts of allegedly fact-based decisions are made including medicine, which impacts us all.
These papers are not a matter of scientific disagreement, or even intentional data obfuscation or falsification. There is an argument to be made that those flaws can get through even a rigorous peer-review process, because people are not perfect. Never have been and never will be.
No, this is different entirely. This is an allegation that the papers weren't even read.
The publishers also could not explain it, admitting that the papers “are all nonsense.”
I have an explanation: There is no such thing as actual peer review at these publications or even editorial review where the paper undergoes even a cursory read-through by someone who understands English.
And now we get down to brass tacks because these publications are both expensive and in addition they have a habit of being cited when setting policy: How do you hold the people involved to account?
You probably can't.
But what you can do is not subscribe to any so-called "peer reviewed" publication and refuse to use or accept any such paper as the predicate for a policy decision without conducting a full and independent review yourself.
Worse, however, is the public-policy problem that comes from this sort of thing: Exactly how many public policy issues have been decided at least in part due to so-called "peer-reviewed" research that in fact wasn't even read?
Nobody knows.
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker)
2014-03-04 06:00 by Karl Denninger (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?email-send=genesis)
in Editorial (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?blog=Market-Ticker&page=1&cat=Editorial) , 247 references (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228825#) http://market-ticker.org/smilies/ignore.gif (http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?ignore_thread=228825)
"Peer Reviewed"? Baloney.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?get_gallerynr=87 Oh really? (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/01/over-100-published-science-journal-articles-just-gibberish/)
Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.
So what that they were pulled?
That's not the issue. The issue is that all of these journals claim to peer-review submissions. That is, they send them out to acknowledged "experts" in the given field for reading and comment -- and that happens before they're published.
Obviously that process is not actually happening despite the claims.
Now here's the problem: If even one such paper gets into publication after being sent out to alleged members of a given profession then it is proof that the so-called "review" system doesn't really exist; either the paper was flagged as bogus but published anyway or the entire process, whether it allegedly takes place or not, is ignored.
This importance of this finding cannot be overstated. Peer-reviewed journals are one of the bedrock foundations on which all sorts of allegedly fact-based decisions are made including medicine, which impacts us all.
These papers are not a matter of scientific disagreement, or even intentional data obfuscation or falsification. There is an argument to be made that those flaws can get through even a rigorous peer-review process, because people are not perfect. Never have been and never will be.
No, this is different entirely. This is an allegation that the papers weren't even read.
The publishers also could not explain it, admitting that the papers “are all nonsense.”
I have an explanation: There is no such thing as actual peer review at these publications or even editorial review where the paper undergoes even a cursory read-through by someone who understands English.
And now we get down to brass tacks because these publications are both expensive and in addition they have a habit of being cited when setting policy: How do you hold the people involved to account?
You probably can't.
But what you can do is not subscribe to any so-called "peer reviewed" publication and refuse to use or accept any such paper as the predicate for a policy decision without conducting a full and independent review yourself.
Worse, however, is the public-policy problem that comes from this sort of thing: Exactly how many public policy issues have been decided at least in part due to so-called "peer-reviewed" research that in fact wasn't even read?
Nobody knows.