Category: Peer review

At a British Journal of Medicine blog, a former editor says, …

… medical research is still a scandal. Is it worse than the state of other research, or does it just receive more scrutiny because our own guts are at stake? more

Academic consensus can structure findings …

… and can also stifle them. The only thing we can be sure of is that static societies and disciplines are always governed by consensus. more

You’ve heard of irreducible, as in “irreducible complexity”?

The editor-in-chief of BioTechniques asks us to exercise our tongues around a new one: irreproducible. It’s a big problem in biology studies today. more

Of thirteen social psych studies, guess which two could not be replicated?

Also, is peer review systemically misogynist, as one author claims? Read our answer below. more

Some grate moments in peer review through history

Asking a crowd of experts can lead to more accurate knowledge or to strengthened conviction and a sense of righteousness and harmony with reality without more accurate knowledge. In short, it can sometimes lead to disaster. more

Retract that, sir, or face the consequences! Er, maybe.

Top ten retractions of 2010, courtesy The Scientist. more

Iowa State U, which dumped astronomer Gonzalez for ID sympathies, gets scammed by fake AIDS research

ISU sure knows how to pick ‘em and how not to. There, you just have to tell people what they want to hear. It’ll be a while before they’ll want to know more. Years, in this case. more

Nobelist Schekman spells out his challenge to science journals

Some papers readily gain an audience but are only called “science” because they promote or arise from or have in some way become associated with a materialist (naturalist) viewpoint. Their prominence is one of the hidden costs of that viewpoint. Which raises a question: CAN the situation be reformed? more

Is teamwork overrated in science?

Gavin McInnes heard comments like, when you hear of scientific teams working on a project, it’s usually one leader and several glorified employees. more

Nobelist Randy Schekman boycotting Nature, Cell, and Science

Says they distort the scientific process: more

Is contemporary science a bubble about to burst?

Alarmism? Maybe, but the fall of psychiatry’s DSM-V, the fact that 47 of 53 landmark medical papers could not be replicated, and the widespread recognition that peer review is bust should not be ignored. more

Should scientists get concepts across by telling stories?

Speaking as a writer, I would say that the problem isn’t that it can’t work but that it can. All too well. That is, good fiction is just as “believable” as fact. more

In Nature, we are warned against the risks of trying to replicate findings

Heck, we’ve only got started with the notion of trying to replicate (reproduce) edgy findings, and already we’re hearing about all the damage it might do. more

Weak statistical cutoff explains non-reproducible science findings?

By Bayesian standards, 17–25% of social science findings “are probably false,” Johnson thinks, and interestingly, he sees this as a bigger problem than biases and scientific misconduct. more

Ever wonder whether those psych studies that use college students in unrealistic situations are questionable?

The thing is, this “inconsistent and unreliable” stuff has doubtless been known for some time and only now, in the wake of other scandals, do we hear about it. Peer review, where are YOU? more

We promise that if you like your psychiatrist, you can keep him …

… just don’t confuse that with getting any better. Here’s a quick summary of the unsolved problems that made psychiatry’s most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) so controversial that it may be the last. more

Nutritionist admits in The Scientist: Much nutrition research is “fatally flawed,” “willfully fraudulent” pseudoscience

Why is it that the least grounded sciences are the ones people are always making laws and rules about? Government-in-yer-lunchbox stuff, for example. more

Another reason why peer review is hard to fix

Science mag: The papers were “perfect” for the planned lectures because they were “perfectly awful,” he recalls—filled with biased reporting and basic errors. Peer review was not working as promised, it seemed. more

Study in Science could fertilize your lawn

According to Slate, one of the tested articles producing lower empathy than great books was a Smithsonian piece about the potato … another was about air mice (house sparrows). more

Amateur blows up false theory

Background: The theory was well credentialed. Now cited in academic journals over 350 times … But Brown smelled bullshit. more

« Previous PageNext Page »