Category: Peer review
|May 22, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Further to Notable retractions of possible interest, here’s something interesting from Nature: Potential flaws in genomics paper scrutinized on Twitter Reanalysis of a study that compared gene expression in mice and humans tests social media as a forum for discussing research results. A recent Twitter conversation that cast doubt on the conclusions of a genomics […]
|May 22, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Three items from Retraction Watch: 1. Unhelpful retractions: A group of authors have withdrawn a 2011 Journal of Biological Chemistry paper, but then appear to have re-published almost the same paper a month later, only this time with just five of the original nine authors. … As we’ve come to expect from the JBC, here’s […]
|May 21, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Biases? In science? From Nautilus: Sometimes it seems surprising that science functions at all. In 2005, medical science was shaken by a paper with the provocative title “Why most published research findings are false.”1 Written by John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, it didn’t actually show that any particular result was wrong. […]
|May 11, 2015||Posted by News under Cosmology, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
Friend Kirk Durston offers a five-part series on the corruption of 21st century science here: Part I: Should you have blind faith in what science has become today? This post will be the first in a series dealing with the corruption of 21st century science. As a scientist, I am increasingly appalled and even, just […]
|May 8, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics suggests ten principles to guide research evaluation. Here’s the .pdf (which may download automatically). Data are increasingly used to govern science. Research evaluations that were once bespoke and performed by peers are now routine and reliant on metrics. The problem is that evaluation is now led by the data […]
|May 5, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
From Nature, we learn that in statistics, P values problems are just the tip of the iceberg: P values are an easy target: being widely used, they are widely abused. But, in practice, deregulating statistical significance opens the door to even more ways to game statistics — intentionally or unintentionally — to get a result. […]
|April 30, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping Significance Peer review is an institution of enormous importance for the careers of scientists and the content of published science. The decisions of gatekeepers—editors and peer reviewers—legitimize scientific findings, distribute professional rewards, and influence future research. However, appropriate data to gauge the quality of gatekeeper decision-making in science has […]
|April 7, 2015||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Peer review|
… have a really hard time figuring out why anyone tries to be good? The current barf is The carriers of the evolutionary process are populations. Populations consist of reproducing individuals, such as cells, viruses, plants, animals, and people. Offspring inherit fundamental information from their parents. This information is encoded in genomes, if we focus […]
|April 5, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
We thought that kind of thing only happened to us ID folk. We’re used to it. Any mediocrity can make his name in Tax-Funded Science attacking us. You pay, you enjoy. Or not. You pay anyway. But now this from Discover: A psychiatry journal, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD), has just published […]
|March 22, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review, Philosophy, Science|
In Everyone, Even Jenny McCarthy, Has the Right to Challenge “Scientific Experts,” science writer John Horgan challenges colleague Chris “war on science” Mooney: I had a similar reaction when I spotted the headline of a recent essay by journalist Chris Mooney: “This Is Why You Have No Business Challenging Scientific Experts.” Similar, that is, to his […]
|March 19, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
Consensus science. Chronicle still hasn’t released a free version of the bad news about consensus science, but a brief quote may be permissible: While the public remains relatively unaware of the problem, it is now a truism in the scientific establishment that many preclinical biomedical studies, when subjected to additional scrutiny, turn out to be false. […]
|March 18, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Featured in an article, Amid a Sea of False Findings, the NIH Tries Reform? BioLogos is a group that wants Christians to believe in evolution, whatever that means. Today, of course it means Darwinism. Didn’t Templeton give them $$millions? One must pay to read the rest. News doesn’t want to pay because it’d just be […]
|March 5, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review, Psychology|
Here at Retraction Watch: Psychology has been home to some of the most infamous cases of fraud in recent years, and while it’s just a few bad apples who are spoiling the bunch, the field itself has seen an overall increase in retractions, according to a new paper by Jürgen Margraf appearing in Psychologische Rundschau […]
|February 16, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
Overall, the comments seen so far at IO8 seem overly focused on what “deniers” will think.
|February 8, 2015||Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
An intelligent person cannot hear this from pop science’s pom poms indefinitely before beginning to wonder about the source.
|February 7, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review|
If you still subscribe to National Geographic, why do you? The pix are great, but they’ll end up on line for free.
|February 6, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Probably, almost all claims for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) as a significant source of new information in life forms depend on such citation networks.
|January 23, 2015||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
Academic status?: Pay $35 for a review of a book in Nature, when the book itself costs way less. That’s status for you! All bellow, no beef.
|January 14, 2015||Posted by News under Human evolution, News, Peer review|
If it all really depended on this one prof Protsch’s work, things are even worse than we are being told.
|December 26, 2014||Posted by News under News, Peer review|
One consequence of living in an echo chamber is that people don’t know when they ARE being bigots.