3 ms·
What did I fail to address? Your argument is that peer review doesn't actually involve any sort of review capable of spotting bad research. That publications op
by manfredo 6y ago
What did I fail to address? Your argument is that peer review doesn't actually involve any sort of review capable of spotting bad research. That publications operate on blind faith, and so failure to spot bad fraudulent research is a non-issue.
And I pointed out that this isn't a rebuttal to what these hoaxsters sought to reveal. In fact, it's an admission that their claims are true: These publication do operate on blind faith and are highly vulnerable to false claims.
You seem to be under the impression that peer review isn't meant to spot ineffective or false claims, and so this hoax reveals nothing. You're entitled to your own opinions, but many others disagree. Most understand that the purpose of peer review to ensure academic rigor and catch bad research, rather than operating under blind faith. So the revelation that many publications operate on blind faith is indeed a significant result.
In short, these hoaxsters are saying, "Look! These publications are incapable of spotting blatantly wrong research."
And you're responding, "But most publications can't spot blatantly wrong research.".
The second statement does not disprove the former. You're just claiming that the conclusions these hoaxsters made about social science publications can also be made against other publications. And that may be your perspective, but others do not have the same pessimistic attitude towards peer review.
- tptacek 6y agoAs I said: the good (not "blind") faith social science venues presume is also presumed by hard science journals, an important fact you're decided to pretend I didn't point out, and one that refutes the Areo Hoax authors arguments. I think we can be done now.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- manfredo 6y agoNo, journals that go as far as accepting chapters of Mein Kampf with a few terms swapped out go beyond "good faith" and into the ream of "blind faith".
- tptacek 6y agoYou're confused. I can't say this better than Stefan Savage did, and though I'm paraphrasing I think the gist will come through anyways: there is nothing magical about being "published" in a journal. What's important about ideas is that other people care about and build on them. Getting published in a journal is just one step on one path towards finding an audience for your idea among academics in a particular field. The cite record in every field is littered with retractions, revisions, replication failures, and even outright fabrications.
- manfredo 6y agoA paper being published in a journal is meant to indicate some degree of review and passing a level of oversight. Yes, there are plenty of journals that fail to do this. And every once in a while people share stories revealing just how poor the review process is in those journals. Like one person who had a paper published that solely consisted of the sentence, "take me off your fucking mailing list" [1]. At this point you're agreeing with the point these hoaxers set out to prove: these journals are poor at reviewing content and the content published in them should not be treated as having any level of authenticity or credibility. > The cite record in every field is littered with retractions, revisions, replication failures, and even outright fabrications. Again, at this point you're not even disagreeing with the claim the hoax paper authors are making. You're just saying that the same observations can be made in other fields. 1. https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam https://www.vox.com/2014/11/21/7259207/scientific-paper-scam
- tptacek 6y agoI'm quoting Stefan Savage, reacting to exactly this story. I'm going to be disinclined to take your word over his.
- manfredo 6y agoThe point is neither you nor Stefan are even disagreeing with the point that the hoaxers are making: that these journals are not capable of rejecting even the most blatantly bad submissions. Stefan is just saying that the same point the hoaxers are making can also be made towards other fields. That may be the case, but it doesn't make the hoaxer's statements any less true. "This journal accepts blatantly bad submissions" "But other journals also accept blatantly bad submissions" The second sentence does not do anything to disprove the first.