Hundreds of papers with bogus peer review to be retracted...

a reply to: AaarghZombies

A lot institutes more or less require their people to publish papers on a regular basis, but a lot of the research that they do simply isn't noteworthy enough for publication. Often because it doesn't break new ground or because it's really just an iteration of something that lots of other people are doing.

What you say does contain some truth. Not only that, but not every hypothesis works the way it was expected, not every experiment gives anticipated results, and not every SWAG (Sophisticated Wild-Ass Guess) turns out correct.

I have been in several projects where I would be asked to build a specific device to perform a specific task. I would research the concept and realize there was a problem no one had overcome yet, so I would start trying to think of ways to overcome it. Sometimes it worked; more times it didn't. The times it did, I was the "Golden Boy." The times it didn't, I was a total screw-up.

But that's science.

There is a public expectation that bleeds over to scientific research leadership: anything can be accomplished if one just wants it badly enough. Sadly that is not true. There are usually reasons why something hasn't been done before. But in order to maintain confidence that a job will be there tomorrow, one must often take on seemingly impossible tasks and make them possible, laws of physics be damned.

Oftentimes, a researcher will run tests to make it appear they are making progress, start looking for another project to join, and hope they find one before their deception is discovered. We have turned research into this kind of disaster by demanding that results mirror expectations and not that expectations give way to results.

A lot institutes more or less require their people to publish papers on a regular basis, but a lot of the research that they do simply isn't noteworthy enough for publication. Often because it doesn't break new ground or because it's really just an iteration of something that lots of other people are doing.

Also true. As a result, many papers are published just so the publisher can add them to their CV, not because the publisher considers them appropriate.

There is a place for verification of experimental results and validation of studies. That is what peer review is all about, and oftentimes a new approach by a fresh mind will uncover advances. Also, "noteworthy" is an opinion, not a fact... I can often interpolate information from a description of a paper that could be considered by others to not be "noteworthy" and create something that is potentially "noteworthy." Science does not require that any one person make some great, ground-shaking contribution in order to be published... it only requires that the information be accurate.

There is a limit. Someone testing Newton's Laws of Motion and verifying them is indeed old hat and likely would not be published. Those laws have been verified and tested and re-verified for over 300 years! It is now a high-school science project, and an insignificant one at that, to verify Newton's Laws of Motion. However, should one discover a situation where those same Laws of Motion are not operating as expected, that would be quite noteworthy! Einstein did just that with his Theories of Relativity.

So while noteworthiness sounds like a good guideline, it often is not such and actually acts to restrict science. Within reason, any paper that produces sound results that are not already peer-reviewed and verified many times over are acceptable.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What I'm getting at is that the papers being retracted aren't necessarily fake.

You used to see this a lot with stem cell research. New papers coming out on a regular basis that merely restated things that were already known, and didn't bring anything new to the table, being waived through by a small cabal of reviewers who would approve each others papers for publication.

Imagine reviewing the same truck 3 or 4 times, but putting different optional extras in. So, one review with the heated seat, and one review without. The person who did the review with the heated seats would waive through the review without, and the person who wrote that review would waive through the other person's review with the heated seats.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: karl 12
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Outstanding!!!

When Fauci says he is the science does that mean he's putting out bogus peer reviewed papers too?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
When Fauci says he is the science does that mean he's putting out bogus peer reviewed papers too?

Naaaah!!!

They have been 'peer reviewed' by his friends and colleagues. It's part of the integral process of establishing good quality science where no loyalties and conflicts of interest exist and no financial interests or politics influence the process of science or the scientists themselves.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

No way man...

Science is an honest man. If you think he's lying, it's just because you're too stupid, and don't know what you're talking about. If you think he's lying about vaxxines, or GOF research, the CDC, or NIH, or WHO will just change a definition so that he is no longer lying. Science doesn't lie.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
When Fauci says he is the science does that mean he's putting out bogus peer reviewed papers too?

Very apparently it seems too. The faux "peer" reviewers are on the short list for saying his lying ass was telling us the truth.

Another aspect of this story which has been forgotten has to do with the nature of academic jobs where you must publish otherwise you will perish!

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What I'm getting at is that the papers being retracted aren't necessarily fake.

Of course not. They also aren't necessarily true.

The whole point of this thread is that it shows just how corrupt the editorial review process is, including any "peer reviews" done at the request of the editors, and how that in itself has made all the "scientific" conclusions bogus. Sure, they might be true but then again they might not. The fact that there is so much money to be made from having papers published means any researcher who wants to eat well, drive a decent car, and live in a decent home will be forced to go along with whatever a single editor at a journal demands.

In other words, it does no good whatsoever now to claim that a paper has been "peer reviewed" during the editorial review. The reviews are corrupt and cannot be trusted. Papers must be considered suspect until personally vetted... in other words, until they have undergone the exact peer review process that science was originally based on and which I have been espousing.

That means, in essence, every paper written on Global Warming and every paper written on aspects of the pandemic must be considered suspect until researchers independently verify the results and conclusions. It applies even further, but those are the two largest politico-science footballs in play now.

We can no longer depend on editorial review at all. If someone claims a paper is peer-reviewed, I want to see the independent reviews. The fact it underwent editorial review means squat.

That might end up being a good thing... the concept of peer review has been so twisted in recent decades as to render it useless and science as capricious at best. Maybe in the end, after all this dust clears, we will once again demand that editors editorialize and researches research instead of the other way around.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: MaxxAction

They lie all the time in science, psychology being the biggest offender, political opinion influences science, Science on it's own is amazing but you add the human element of deceiving others for personal gain whether it be monetary or influence/power....

Nothing has really change from the times of Rome.

Psychology isn't even really a science. It's based on comparing people to a standard of "normal" thinking. The problem is that "normal" is entirely a social construct, which is influenced by countless things and changes over time.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AaarghZombies

What I'm getting at is that the papers being retracted aren't necessarily fake.

Of course not. They also aren't necessarily true.

The whole point of this thread is that it shows just how corrupt the editorial review process is, including any "peer reviews" done at the request of the editors, and how that in itself has made all the "scientific" conclusions bogus. Sure, they might be true but then again they might not. The fact that there is so much money to be made from having papers published means any researcher who wants to eat well, drive a decent car, and live in a decent home will be forced to go along with whatever a single editor at a journal demands.

In other words, it does no good whatsoever now to claim that a paper has been "peer reviewed" during the editorial review. The reviews are corrupt and cannot be trusted. Papers must be considered suspect until personally vetted... in other words, until they have undergone the exact peer review process that science was originally based on and which I have been espousing.

That means, in essence, every paper written on Global Warming and every paper written on aspects of the pandemic must be considered suspect until researchers independently verify the results and conclusions. It applies even further, but those are the two largest politico-science footballs in play now.

We can no longer depend on editorial review at all. If someone claims a paper is peer-reviewed, I want to see the independent reviews. The fact it underwent editorial review means squat.

That might end up being a good thing... the concept of peer review has been so twisted in recent decades as to render it useless and science as capricious at best. Maybe in the end, after all this dust clears, we will once again demand that editors editorialize and researches research instead of the other way around.

TheRedneck

Can't agree more!

Independent peer-review is vital on many occasions as the process has been corrupted over the years. The editor or editors may not accept papers that don't follow the narrative regardless of the facts and evidence provided in the papers.

Scientists and academics know if they don't publish they will perish. Known as 'publish or perish' and hence they know that if you want to have a decent life and a career you need usually to follow the official line publishing papers that have no value and materials that you don't even believe themselves.

I don't think anyone can trust a large number of papers under this medical tyranny regime.

There are good peer-reviewed papers in all areas l, generally speaking, but when science and medicine are corrupted by financial and political interests, such as in the case of Covid-19 research, you start by believing in nothing and demand transparency before anything else.