3 ms·
“Passing” peer review is a bit of a misnomer. Peer review doesn’t prevent you from publishing anything. It just prevents you from publishing obviously flawed, o
by true_religion 4y ago
“Passing” peer review is a bit of a misnomer. Peer review doesn’t prevent you from publishing anything. It just prevents you from publishing obviously flawed, or obviously fraudulent experimental results in this particular journal.
You can always shop around to different journals, use disclaimers, get the name of a prominent peer on tour paper, or find a journal with no reviewer.
If you really want to publish, you will.
Disclaimer: I haven’t read the actual experimental paper. I don’t claim they are flawed. Lack of a control doesn’t mean you are flawed. You could be using baseline results from another study as a comparison.
- dTal 4y ago>Lack of a control doesn’t mean you are flawed. You could be using baseline results from another study as a comparison. No you can't! This is naughty! There are too many uncontrolled variables between studies. You need to run your own control group, every time, to have any experimental power. To be sure, it's common to cheat in the way that you describe, for budgetary reasons. That doesn't make it good science.