3 ms·

Yikes. She contacted the journal to report this clear fraud they were perpetuating and received no response for 6 months. Yet people equate “peer reviewed” and

Yikes. She contacted the journal to report this clear fraud they were perpetuating and received no response for 6 months. Yet people equate “peer reviewed” and “absolute fact”.

Waterluvian 3y ago
If you want to hear back from any organization, you’ve got to write it on lawyer letterhead.
- staunton 3y ago
  Which indeed doesn't work for journals because publishing wrong research isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal...
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    I just mean, it’s so easy to ignore inquiries and I’ve found that if you ever get ignored and need to be heard, a lawyer’s letterhead attracts attention. I agree with the legal issue you put forth.
  - eru 3y ago
    Yes, but the social engineering aspect of that trick might still work.
HideousKojima 3y ago
Peer review means "has no blatantly obvious methodological issues" at best, and not even that a decent amount of the time. A lot of people take it to mean that the paper's results/conclusions are accurate.
- eru 3y ago
  Peer review standards also differ between fields and journals.
courseofaction 3y ago
I think this demonstrates a hypothesis: The institution is failing, the technology which exploits the failure is close to irrelevant.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > I think this demonstrates a hypothesis: The institution is failing This claim needs to be more specific to be meaningful: How is the 'institution' defined? What evidence do we have that it's performing worse than before, or not functioning (producing valuable scientific knowledge)?
maxbond 3y ago
I think when lay people say "peer reviewed research" they mean it as a metanym for "the scientific consensus as established by empirical research and vigorous debate," which isn't absolute fact to be sure, but is about as sturdy a foundation as you can hope for. I think I know more about peer review and retractions than most people - and I know next to nothing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Yikes. She contacted the journal to report this clear fraud they were perpetuating and received no response for 6 months. Yet people equate “peer reviewed” and “absolute fact”.

Waterluvian 3y ago

If you want to hear back from any organization, you’ve got to write it on lawyer letterhead.

staunton 3y ago
Which indeed doesn't work for journals because publishing wrong research isn't (and shouldn't be) illegal...
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  I just mean, it’s so easy to ignore inquiries and I’ve found that if you ever get ignored and need to be heard, a lawyer’s letterhead attracts attention. I agree with the legal issue you put forth.
- eru 3y ago
  Yes, but the social engineering aspect of that trick might still work.

HideousKojima 3y ago

Peer review means "has no blatantly obvious methodological issues" at best, and not even that a decent amount of the time. A lot of people take it to mean that the paper's results/conclusions are accurate.

eru 3y ago
Peer review standards also differ between fields and journals.

courseofaction 3y ago

I think this demonstrates a hypothesis: The institution is failing, the technology which exploits the failure is close to irrelevant.

wolverine876 3y ago
> I think this demonstrates a hypothesis: The institution is failing This claim needs to be more specific to be meaningful: How is the 'institution' defined? What evidence do we have that it's performing worse than before, or not functioning (producing valuable scientific knowledge)?

maxbond 3y ago

I think when lay people say "peer reviewed research" they mean it as a metanym for "the scientific consensus as established by empirical research and vigorous debate," which isn't absolute fact to be sure, but is about as sturdy a foundation as you can hope for. I think I know more about peer review and retractions than most people - and I know next to nothing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]