3 ms·
Good venues do: that's a big part of peer review in any decent journal or conference. While reproducibility could be improved, it's not nearly as large a proble
by tikhonj 12y ago
Good venues do: that's a big part of peer review in any decent journal or conference. While reproducibility could be improved, it's not nearly as large a problem as what the article is talking about: publication venues that don't even try to vet incoming papers.
These are places that publish papers without even reading the title. You could submit obvious nonsense—randomly generated gibberish—and get published. You can't do that in respected venues in most fields, especially in science. But for people outside of the field, it's really hard to tell which venues are legitimate and which ones aren't, and incentives are misaligned so that quantity of publishing matters far more than anything else.
- sseveran 12y agoI would submit that these venues are not doing an adequate job. The Nature case and the Duke cancer case are examples of how even the most reputable journals can be scammed with fabricated data. We weren't even talking about questionable practices with subtle problems. They were outright fabrications. The most damning comment is near the end where 2% admit to fabricating and 30% to questionable practices. And that was just the self reported results.