2 ms·
The question is how much of that stuff is fraudulent or at least suspect: you'll find that most scientists are skeptical of a large fraction of papers published
by rcxdude 3y ago
The question is how much of that stuff is fraudulent or at least suspect: you'll find that most scientists are skeptical of a large fraction of papers published in their field, there is a lot of crap that gets through peer review, and most will not get openly questioned because it's a lot of effort and quite high-risk, especially if it's a result that's of low importance.
- BSEdlMMldESB 3y agoI am probably even crazier I see that the mathematics ultimately provide the basis for a lot of that research, which can be summed up as measuring various things, recording the measurements, and publishing the whole thing. But it's all built on the same essential math at the foundation. and the mathematics is duplicated a lot to, but this is hard to see, you'd need a 'real' expert, of the kind that can be hand counted
- kmmlng 3y agoYes, the label "peer review" is meaningless. There are good peer review processes at top journals and conferences and getting through those is a meaningful accomplishment. Then there are also worthless peer review processes at lower quality avenues. Getting through those is like getting a participation trophy. Yes, you need to show up on time, but not much more than that. The real peer review happens afterwards, when other researchers actually engage with your work.