4 ms·

I can only guess that the downvotes you're getting are based mostly on the "tone" of your reply -- which is pretty hostile, but whatever. Ok, so here's the dea

I can only guess that the downvotes you're getting are based mostly on the "tone" of your reply -- which is pretty hostile, but whatever. Ok, so here's the deal: If it's really easy to get these things published, then I suggest (if you care enough, you clearly care a great deal) that you try to get a paper puplished on your double-blinded randomized trial (etc.). Honestly, it sounds like you might have a beef with the scientific process[1]. Btw, what's going on with your (3) link? Was that your edit buffer or something? [1] No, it's not flawless. There's publication bias, etc., but so far it's the best anyone's come up with.

owenversteeg 10y ago
My apologies if it seemed hostile. I get worked up about bad science, and PNAS's process in particular is very bad-sciency, allowing anyone famous enough to bypass the peer review process. Nothing about you particularly, or your comment :) And hah, no beef with the scientific process here. I'm definitely very pro-science, and pro-scientific process. But that also makes me very anti-bad-science, and that paper is definitely a jumble of bad science that somehow scraped by the peer review process because of nepotism in PNAS. Yep, [3]'s my 3am brain dump. Mostly unrelated but dumped in that comment cause it's the only one I can edit. And now you've got me thinking about how feasible it would be. If I actually go through with this, I'm blaming you for it :)
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  Heh, happy to take the blame/accolades for the inspiration! :) I definitely think there's room for improvement (no particular experience with PNAS) in general -- peer review is very flawed, and there are huge problems with publication bias, the area being so specialized that the reviewers (indirectly) know whose article they're reviewing, etc. Actually, I think one of the most interesting things (science-wise) to come out in recent years is the meta-science of science-about-science, fuzzy as that may be. I'm guessing you already know of him, but Ben Goldacre has been a great source (for us outsiders) for information on this.

owenversteeg 10y ago

My apologies if it seemed hostile. I get worked up about bad science, and PNAS's process in particular is very bad-sciency, allowing anyone famous enough to bypass the peer review process. Nothing about you particularly, or your comment :) And hah, no beef with the scientific process here. I'm definitely very pro-science, and pro-scientific process. But that also makes me very anti-bad-science, and that paper is definitely a jumble of bad science that somehow scraped by the peer review process because of nepotism in PNAS. Yep, [3]'s my 3am brain dump. Mostly unrelated but dumped in that comment cause it's the only one I can edit. And now you've got me thinking about how feasible it would be. If I actually go through with this, I'm blaming you for it :)

lomnakkus 10y ago
Heh, happy to take the blame/accolades for the inspiration! :) I definitely think there's room for improvement (no particular experience with PNAS) in general -- peer review is very flawed, and there are huge problems with publication bias, the area being so specialized that the reviewers (indirectly) know whose article they're reviewing, etc. Actually, I think one of the most interesting things (science-wise) to come out in recent years is the meta-science of science-about-science, fuzzy as that may be. I'm guessing you already know of him, but Ben Goldacre has been a great source (for us outsiders) for information on this.