3 ms·
These are meta-analyses and as such don't require lab work by definition. My impression was that somebody has created some useful tools or amassed enough experi
by matt4077 12y ago
These are meta-analyses and as such don't require lab work by definition. My impression was that somebody has created some useful tools or amassed enough experience to do this kind of work efficiently.
- jonnathanson 12y agoFair point about "labwork," but even putting that aside, it doesn't sound like any legitimate science is being done, one way or the other. I doubt they're even doing any meta-analysis. Sounds like they're just playing buzzword bingo, and citing previous studies to make it seem as if there's a legitimate basis for their "study." If you'll notice, most of the phony papers cited failed to establish any significant findings in their putative meta-analyses. If one were going to fake whole-cloth studies, it seems that this is the safest and easiest way to do it. For example: I find 20 previously published papers on a given topic, I claim I did a "Begger's funnel" meta-analysis of them, and I claim the Begger's funnel analysis found no statistically significant results. Done. I have a new paper to publish, from essentially nothing. The giveaway, to me, is the fake statistical method that's repeatedly cited (in this case, the "Begger's funnel plot"). A legitimate meta-analysis wouldn't cite a fake methodology. It would have no need to do so. The fake method is used because it sounds arcane and advanced, and whoever is doing the peer review is going to assume it's legit.