• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Scientific Retraction Leader Board

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ever wonder which scientists have piled up the most retractions? Wonder no more. The great website Retraction Watch has created a Retraction Watch Leader Board so you can keep track.
[h=2]Who has the most retractions? Introducing the Retraction Watch leaderboard[/h] Ever since we broke the news about the issues with the now-retracted Science paper about changing people’s minds on gay marriage, we’ve been the subject of a lot of press coverage, which has in turn led a number of people to ask us: Who has the most retractions?
Well, we’ve tried to answer that in our new Retraction Watch leaderboard.
Here is the current list (click here for more detailed information about our methodology and additional notes): Read the rest of this entry »
 
Jack Hays said:
Ever wonder which scientists have piled up the most retractions? Wonder no more. The great website Retraction Watch has created a Retraction Watch Leader Board so you can keep track.
[h=2]Who has the most retractions? Introducing the Retraction Watch leaderboard[/h] Ever since we broke the news about the issues with the now-retracted Science paper about changing people’s minds on gay marriage, we’ve been the subject of a lot of press coverage, which has in turn led a number of people to ask us: Who has the most retractions?
Well, we’ve tried to answer that in our new Retraction Watch leaderboard.
Here is the current list (click here for more detailed information about our methodology and additional notes): Read the rest of this entry »
Click to expand...

Science should make another retraction, from my perspective.

Stagnant force
Science is so ignorant, that it is trying to unify around what must be called, a stagnant force. That stagnant force is Newton and Einstein's claims, that mass alone creates gravity. There is no way possible for that to happen.



Another part of Science claims that there is an equal and opposite reaction, for every action.

What kind of opposing reaction comes from something that is stagnant? Why is science so stupid that it cannot understand that?

By stagnant, according to Newton and Einstein, it is by mass alone, where-by gravity is created.

Everything in the universe is rotating and revolving. Newton and Einstein were wrong.
 
The scientists must think everybody is ignorant, by the things they say.

New science by Jim Ryan

The big bang!

In any explosion, the material goes away from the focal point.
When this explosion happened everything shot straight away from this big explosion, considered to be the Big Bang. Now the evolutionists claim that gravity made all of this material congeal into the celestial bodies throughout the universe, but the scientist didn't quite think this through, because there was nothing in the universe until then, so there was no gravity, no celestial bodies to bring all of this material together and besides with no gravity, all of that material just shot out in a straight line and kept going on forever. Without celestial bodies that are rotating and revolving, there is no gravity.

Scientist these days, they are so funny because they don't realize people can figure these things out.

By the way, did the big bang boom create space and if so, use science and show how it was done.

With simple cause and effect, I can show many more things that Newton and Einstein and science got wrong.
 
Last edited:
Big bang earths core

New science by Jim Ryan

The evolutionists have no way of proving that string theory or the big bang boom theory is plausible, but since they are a product of brainwashing, one cannot expect them to understand anything more than the copy and paste they have been taught since early childhood.

The evolutionists are a product of teaching for the sake of sensationalism and money.

To prove my point, newton and science claim there would be zero gravity at the center of the earth, when in fact, at the center of the earth, centrifugal force is much too great to be held to zero gravity. Centrifugal force from The huge ball spinning on the inside of the earth, would not allow zero gravity.

To come to zero gravity, that huge ball of Iron ore would have to come to a standstill, which it never will, until the earth dies.

Most of the space junk circling our planet will not come down to earth, because of centrifugal force.
That same centrifugal force is created by the ball of metal circling the inside of our earth, which will not allow the center of the earth to come to zero gravity. Newton was wrong.

At zero gravity, nothing will move, without force.


These evolutionists have no leg to stand on, because they cannot prove the big bang boom or string theory.

When science has no way of proving something it makes something up. That is what is being taught children and has been taught children for a great many years.
 
[h=2]Three more retractions for former record-holder Boldt, maybe more to come[/h] without comments

Justus Liebig University in Germany has been investigating concerns that Joachim Boldt, number two on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard and now up to 92 retractions, may have “manipulated” more data than previously believed.
Until now, the vast majority of Boldt’s retractions were thought to have involved inadequate ethics approval. However, new retraction notices for Boldt’s research suggest that there’s evidence the researcher also engaged in significant data manipulation.
The first retraction from the university investigation emerged last year. Two of three new notices cite the investigation specifically, and an informant at the university told us that there are more retractions to come.
Here are the retracted papers that are freshly on the record, starting with an August retraction for a 1991 Anesthesiology paper (cited 37 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge):
Read the rest of this entry »
 
Jim Ryan said:
With simple cause and effect, I can show many more things that Newton and Einstein and science got wrong.
Click to expand...

You can't show anything Jim. Unfortunately for you, hot air and conjecture does not constitute the truth.

Science is a method, not a series of conclusions. Science depends on the ability of someone other than you to replicate your results.

You can not "show" anything about anything you're saying, because you can not design an experiment that proves anything you're saying.

Until you can design an experiment, one that others can replicate, then you should stay entirely out of the domain of science, because armchair scientists are not scientists, they're nothing more than wanna-be philosophers.

Science requires you to actually design an experiment. If that's not being done, then it's not science.
 
ballantine said:
You can't show anything Jim. Unfortunately for you, hot air and conjecture does not constitute the truth.

Science is a method, not a series of conclusions. Science depends on the ability of someone other than you to replicate your results.

You can not "show" anything about anything you're saying, because you can not design an experiment that proves anything you're saying.

Until you can design an experiment, one that others can replicate, then you should stay entirely out of the domain of science, because armchair scientists are not scientists, they're nothing more than wanna-be philosophers.

Science requires you to actually design an experiment. If that's not being done, then it's not science.
Click to expand...


Not to mention that this OP has a profound lack of understanding of very basic concepts, some of which he tends to not understand what gravity is, he does not seem to understand that a body at rest is not completely motionless, he also doesn't seem to grab the concept that for every possible action there is an equal and opposite reaction, is not entirely true and is used colloquially to define in simpler terms that matter and energy are interchangeable and are never created or destroyed.. and I could go on, and on, but I'm getting bored now.. :)

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Not to mention that this OP has a profound lack of understanding of very basic concepts, some of which he tends to not understand what gravity is, he does not seem to understand that a body at rest is not completely motionless, he also doesn't seem to grab the concept that for every possible action there is an equal and opposite reaction, is not entirely true and is used colloquially to define in simpler terms that matter and energy are interchangeable and are never created or destroyed.. and I could go on, and on, but I'm getting bored now.. :)

Tim-
Click to expand...

Ahem. Jim is not the OP.
 
[h=2]64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals[/h] with 3 comments
This is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.
Given that there have been about 1,500 papers retracted overall since 2012, when we first reported on the phenomenon, faked reviews have been responsible for about 15% of all retractions in the past three years.
This isn’t the first time Springer has faced the issue. As owner of the BioMed Central journals, it issued 43 retractions for faked reviews earlier this year.
In a statement, the publisher explains how the latest round of retractions came to light: Read the rest of this entry »
 
[h=2]17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250[/h] without comments
On Monday, we reported on 64 new retractions from Springer journals resulting from fake peer reviews. Yesterday, SAGE — which retracted 60 papers for the same reason just over a year ago — added 17 additional retractions to their list.
The articles were published in five different journals, and one retraction involved authorship fraud in addition to peer review fraud, according to a SAGE spokesperson: Read the rest of this entry »
[h=3][/h]
 
Jack Hays said:
64 more papers retracted for fake reviews, this time from Springer journals

with 3 comments
This is officially becoming a trend: Springer is pulling another 64 articles from 10 journals after finding evidence of faked peer reviews, bringing the total number of retractions from the phenomenon north of 230.
Given that there have been about 1,500 papers retracted overall since 2012, when we first reported on the phenomenon, faked reviews have been responsible for about 15% of all retractions in the past three years.
This isn’t the first time Springer has faced the issue. As owner of the BioMed Central journals, it issued 43 retractions for faked reviews earlier this year.
In a statement, the publisher explains how the latest round of retractions came to light: Read the rest of this entry »
Click to expand...

Don't you think part of the problem is the fact that graduate degrees are becoming an essential in many professional fields, and that is requiring thousands of graduate students to come up with unique Master's Thesis topics and/or Doctoral Dissertation topics? And the 'publish or perish' doctrine persists in academia and the scientific community? Over the years I have served as research assistant from time to time and one of my kids worked her way through the process to get her own PhD by working almost exclusively as a research assistant on various social and scientific projects for degree candidates and also those in academia, etc. who are struggling to be recognized in a publish or perish environment.

Both of us encountered and identified what we would label as 'bogus research' as some degree candidate or professor or scientist struggled to get that paper completed, peer reviewed, and published. And very often the peer review would be a quid pro quo kind of arrangement in which I will peer review your paper and you peer review mine kind of thing. Peer review is no longer always reliable evidence that a study or research project was even properly conducted, let alone produced a reasoned valid conclusion.

That probably explains a scientific 'study' I read recently concluding that bacon is good for us and another suggesting that consumption of those 'bad carbs' is a good thing because they enlarge our brains and make us smarter.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Don't you think part of the problem is the fact that graduate degrees are becoming an essential in many professional fields, and that is requiring thousands of graduate students to come up with unique Master's Thesis topics and/or Doctoral Dissertation topics? And the 'publish or perish' doctrine persists in academia and the scientific community? Over the years I have served as research assistant from time to time and one of my kids worked her way through the process to get her own PhD by working almost exclusively as a research assistant on various social and scientific projects for degree candidates and also those in academia, etc. who are struggling to be recognized in a publish or perish environment.

Both of us encountered and identified what we would label as 'bogus research' as some degree candidate or professor or scientist struggled to get that paper completed, peer reviewed, and published. And very often the peer review would be a quid pro quo kind of arrangement in which I will peer review your paper and you peer review mine kind of thing. Peer review is no longer always reliable evidence that a study or research project was even properly conducted, let alone produced a reasoned valid conclusion.

That probably explains a scientific 'study' I read recently concluding that bacon is good for us and another suggesting that consumption of those 'bad carbs' is a good thing because they enlarge our brains and make us smarter.
Click to expand...

I don't think I would disagree with anything you wrote except to point out that many Master's Degrees don't require a thesis.
 
Jack Hays said:
I don't think I would disagree with anything you wrote except to point out that many Master's Degrees don't require a thesis.
Click to expand...

That's true, many don't. But some do. I know because I've served as research assistance digging for stuff to put in somebody's thesis as well as assisting with dissertation projects.

Usually though, when I have been drafted for such tasks, it has been to work for a professor or scientist trying to gather up enough stuff to put together for a article in an academic or scientific publication. And most of these are probably professional and honest efforts. But I can personally testify that not all are.
 
[h=2]New Retraction Watch partnership will create retraction database[/h] with 5 comments
As our readers know, one of the goals of our work at Retraction Watch is to create a free, comprehensive database of retractions. That effort is generously funded by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and The Laura and John Arnold Foundation.
Today, we’re excited to announce that our parent organization, The Center For Scientific Integrity (CSI), has partnered with The Center For Open Science (COS) to create that database on the Open Science Framework (OSF).
It’s a natural collaboration, says Retraction Watch co-founder and CSI executive director Ivan Oransky:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom