3 ms·

There’s literally f.all point having peer review if the peer reviewers who passed this junk for publication aren’t the ones deciding if the paper needs to be re

by harry8 3y ago

There’s literally f.all point having peer review if the peer reviewers who passed this junk for publication aren’t the ones deciding if the paper needs to be retracted when this stuff comes out. How are these journals retaining any prestige when this stuff is un-retracted? The stink should be smeared all over all of them. The publishers should be sued into the ground for fraud given the exorbitant subscription fees. I can’t think of a single reason not to burn it all down.

bsenftner 3y ago
We need to burn these failed institutions down, and hard. A lesson needs to be taught to our larger terribly immature public: do this crap and you'll be destroyed.
UncleMeat 3y ago
Peer review means "other academics read the paper and provide feedback about whether the paper is novel, important, and clear." This usually involves a couple hours of work from the reviewer. It is woefully incapable of detecting fraudulent data. How could it? Some fraud has been caught through statistical analysis of datasets, but this takes a lot of time and requires expertise that most academics don't have. Detecting faked images has an even less clear path that people can follow. Academic fraud is bad. But it isn't like other ecosystems are more effective and capable of detecting fraudulent work. The journals suck, but mostly for reasons totally unrelated to the limitations of peer review.
- harry8 3y ago
  The peer reviewers are clearly capable of going back and reviewing the new criticism about the paper at the direction of the journal and deciding, “Yes. We didn’t see this at the time but the criticism is valid and the paper should be withdrawn.” Note that there is presently no note on the publications that the papers should not be relied on in any way. The authors are pretending there is no problem which is utterly ridiculous and embarrassingly so. I’m not ok with that as the status quo. I don’t think anyone should be.

by harry8 3y ago

bsenftner 3y ago

We need to burn these failed institutions down, and hard. A lesson needs to be taught to our larger terribly immature public: do this crap and you'll be destroyed.

UncleMeat 3y ago

Peer review means "other academics read the paper and provide feedback about whether the paper is novel, important, and clear." This usually involves a couple hours of work from the reviewer. It is woefully incapable of detecting fraudulent data. How could it? Some fraud has been caught through statistical analysis of datasets, but this takes a lot of time and requires expertise that most academics don't have. Detecting faked images has an even less clear path that people can follow. Academic fraud is bad. But it isn't like other ecosystems are more effective and capable of detecting fraudulent work. The journals suck, but mostly for reasons totally unrelated to the limitations of peer review.

harry8 3y ago
The peer reviewers are clearly capable of going back and reviewing the new criticism about the paper at the direction of the journal and deciding, “Yes. We didn’t see this at the time but the criticism is valid and the paper should be withdrawn.” Note that there is presently no note on the publications that the papers should not be relied on in any way. The authors are pretending there is no problem which is utterly ridiculous and embarrassingly so. I’m not ok with that as the status quo. I don’t think anyone should be.