Category: Peer review
A defense of peer review
| May 27, 2013 | Posted by News under Peer review |
Read and learn. Is it worth it for you? more
An insurrection against “journal impact factors” in science?
| May 20, 2013 | Posted by News under Peer review |
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
| July 13, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
“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?
| July 7, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
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?
| July 2, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
Was plagiarism always this common, but only recently easy to detect, using machine methods? more
Peer review: The value of teaching vs. publishing
| June 29, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
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Why peer review is obsolete and what to do about it
| June 24, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
“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…
| June 21, 2012 | Posted by News under Climate change, News, Peer review |
… and then wondering why people don’t take the science seriously. more
UD Commenter Nick Matzke in Prestigious Scientific Journal Nature Again
| June 17, 2012 | Posted by scordova under Ecology, extinction, Global Warming, Media, Peer review, Science |
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 …
| June 10, 2012 | Posted by News under Darwinism, News, Peer review |
… which is why they don’t do it very often. more
In one study, half the scientists admitted to reporting only desired results
| May 25, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
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 …
| May 22, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
“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
| May 20, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Origin Of Life, Peer review |
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.
| May 19, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
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”?
| May 10, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
“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
| April 28, 2012 | Posted by News under Darwinism, News, Peer review, Physics |
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
| April 23, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
“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
| April 22, 2012 | Posted by News under Atheism, Culture, News, Peer review |
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
| April 21, 2012 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
“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!
| April 19, 2012 | Posted by News under News, Peer review |
“This is a more polite way of saying “We want to see how much of what gets published turns out to be bunk.”” more