Category: Peer review

A defense of peer review

Read and learn. Is it worth it for you? more

An insurrection against “journal impact factors” in science?

Remember this stuff when someone tries to downplay an article that casts doubt on Darwinism (or similar flimflam) by claiming that the journal that published it has a low impact factor. more

Design inference used in detecting science fraud, but significance not really admitted

“As this article once again reveals, no evolutionist is consistent with his world view. All of them, in order to function at all, must contradict their world view.” more

Beyond peer review: Could a new fraud detection tool work in science?

There is, of course, a simpler method that you don’t have to pay for: When it comes to social psychology, we are all experts, by necessity. more

Science plagiarism a booming business?

Was plagiarism always this common, but only recently easy to detect, using machine methods? more

Peer review: The value of teaching vs. publishing

Henderson’s’suggestion – describing the work of the academic who mainly teaches as “consumatory scholarship” – is a word game. There is a more direct way. more

Why peer review is obsolete and what to do about it

“Peer-review selection isn’t a practical priority for a website like arxiv.org, because there is little cost associated with letting dross rot quietly in a forgotten corner of the site. ” more

Peer review: Putting politics before science on ultimate PC issue, climate change…

… and then wondering why people don’t take the science seriously. more

UD Commenter Nick Matzke in Prestigious Scientific Journal Nature Again

I believe this is already the 2nd time that Nick has graced the pages of the world’s leading science journal. See: Predicting a state shift in the biosphere, and communicating it. Looks like it is the cover story too! Nick and I have been opponents in the ID / Evolution debate for years. I’m glad… more

Yes, Darwinists have heard about replication …

… which is why they don’t do it very often. more

In one study, half the scientists admitted to reporting only desired results

Sometimes reforms must go deeper than that proposal. They need to become the people who would not take those shortcuts in the first place. more

What gets past peer review these days? Immortality through exercise …

“Man would be immortal if only he did sufficient daily exercise, something in the region of six hours.” (?) more

Conformism in science fueled by unproductive competition, says researcher who got around it

Ninety per cent of the research is on 10% of the genes. And industry is relying on us to be innovative? … we’re not doing society a service in the way we do research. more

Replication woes: What never existed can’t be replicated.

Of course, cleaning house at those journals would be a darn good idea, but let’s not break out the bubbly yet. more

Admitted: Research is “riddled with systematic errors”?

“Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves.” more

Mathematician Granville Sewell denied right to respond to rebuttals in journal

Once again, Darwinism’s questionable relationship to thermodynamics is the issue. more

Peer review: Maybe cancer won’t kill you, but bad data about it will

“After publishing a paper on a rare head-and-neck cancer, he learned the cells he had been studying were instead cervical cancer.” more

When getting theists to say they trust atheists, nothing beats fear of the police

After repeal of infamous Section 13 becomes general knowledge, it will be interesting to see if this study’s results are reproducible. more

Scientists puzzle over causes of huge increase in fraud

“In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent.” more

Big news in peer review?: Reproducibility project!

“This is a more polite way of saying “We want to see how much of what gets published turns out to be bunk.”” more

Next Page »