• 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!

This could NVER happen in Climate science.

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.

It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.



..Especially since warmists control the field with an iron fist.

C2ubT00VEAEeT8S-645x645.jpg

^^^^^^

Brainwashed child of a liberal.
 
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
 
[h=2]Dear journals: Clean up your act. Regards, Concerned Biostatistician[/h][FONT=&quot]with 9 comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
romain2.jpg
Romain-Daniel Gosselin
​
Recently, a biostatistician sent an open letter to editors of 10 major science journals, urging them to pay more attention to common statistical problems with papers. Specifically, Romain-Daniel Gosselin, Founder and CEO of Biotelligences, which trains researchers in biostatistics, counted how many of 10 recent papers in each of the 10 journals contained two common problems: omitting the sample size used in experiments, as well as the tests used as part of the statistical analyses. (Short answer: Too many.) Below, we have reproduced his letter.
Dear Editors and Colleagues,
I write this letter as a biologist and instructor of biostatistics, concerned about the disregard for statistical reporting that is threatening scientific reproducibility. I hereby urge you to spearhead the strict application of existing guidelines on statistical reporting. Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]A new record: Major publisher retracting more than 100 studies from cancer journal over fake peer reviews[/h][FONT=&quot]with 12 comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
tumor-biology.jpg
Springer is retracting 107 papers from one journal after discovering they had been accepted with fake peer reviews. Yes, 107.
To submit a fake review, someone (often the author of a paper) either makes up an outside expert to review the paper, or suggests a real researcher — and in both cases, provides a fake email address that comes back to someone who will invariably give the paper a glowing review. In this case, Springer, the publisher of Tumor Biology through 2016, told us that an investigation produced “clear evidence” the reviews were submitted under the names of real researchers with faked emails. Some of the authors may have used a third-party editing service, which may have supplied the reviews. The journal is now published by SAGE.
The retractions follow another sweep by the publisher last year, when Tumor Biology retracted 25 papers for compromised review and other issues, mostly authored by researchers based in Iran. With the latest bunch of retractions, the journal has now retracted the most papers of any other journal indexed by Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, formerly part of Thomson Reuters. In 2015, its impact factor — 2.9 — ranked it 104th out of 213 oncology journals.
Here’s more from Springer’s official statement, out today:
Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Another editor resigns from journal hit by citation scandal[/h][FONT=&quot]with 7 comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
LDR.jpg
Another editor has resigned from an earth science journal following allegations over citation irregularities, which also took down its editor-in-chief.
According to Land Degradation & Development website, editor Paolo Pereira has stepped down from the journal. The journal does not say why, and a spokesperson for publisher Wiley did not elaborate. The website has included the announcement about Pereira above a longer statement regarding citation issues at the journal, which saw its Impact Factor rise dramatically from 3.089 in 2014 to 8.145 in 2015.
Pereira — based at Mykolas Romeris University in Lithuania — has co-authored multiple papers with Artemi Cerdà of the University of Valencia in Spain, who stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal earlier this year.
Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Hello…Newman: Yet another sting pranks a predatory journal, Seinfeld-style[/h][FONT=&quot]with 9 comments[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
mccool.jpg
John McCool
​
Starting to get bored of stings designed to expose the well-documented flaws in scientific publishing? Yeah, sometimes we are too. But another one just came across our desks, and we couldn’t help ourselves.
John McCool is neither a researcher nor a urologist. When received an unsolicited invitation to submit a paper to an open-access urology journal, however, he just couldn’t resist: He is the owner of a freelance scientific editing company, and has long been concerned about so-called predatory journals, which often publish sub-par papers as long as authors pay. And he loves the TV show “Seinfeld.”
Like many others before him, McCool decided to punk the journal by submitting a fake paper. He told us:
Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=2]Dear journals: Clean up your act. Regards, Concerned Biostatistician[/h][FONT="][URL="http://retractionwatch.com/2017/04/21/dear-journals-clean-act-regards-concerned-biostatistican/#comments"]with 9 comments[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][CENTER][IMG]http://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/romain2.jpg[/IMG]Romain-Daniel Gosselin
[/CENTER]
[I]Recently, a biostatistician sent an open letter to editors of 10 major science journals, urging them to pay more attention to common statistical problems with papers. Specifically, [/I][URL="https://www.linkedin.com/in/romain-daniel-gosselin-7179b33/"]Romain-Daniel Gosselin[/URL], Founder and CEO of Biotelligences, which trains researchers in biostatistics, counted how many of 10 recent papers in each of the 10 journals contained two common problems: omitting the sample size used in experiments, as well as the tests used as part of the statistical analyses. (Short answer: Too many.) Below, we have reproduced his letter.
Dear Editors and Colleagues,
I write this letter as a biologist and instructor of biostatistics, concerned about the disregard for statistical reporting that is threatening scientific reproducibility. I hereby urge you to spearhead the strict application of existing guidelines on statistical reporting. Read the rest of this entry »
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Hmmmm. :?: Interesting title for a thread: "This could never happen in Climate Science." :mrgreen:
 
MrPeanut said:
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
Click to expand...


[FONT=&quot]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][h=2]A university asked for numerous retractions. Eight months later, three journals have done nothing.[/h]with 2 comments
Anil Jaiswal
​
When journals learn papers are problematic, how long does it take them to act?
We recently had a chance to find out as part of our continuing coverage of the case of Anil Jaiswal at the University of Maryland, who’s retracted 15 papers (including two new ones we recently identified), and has transitioned out of cancer research. Here’s what happened.
As part of a public records request related to the investigation, we received letters that the University of Maryland sent to 11 journals regarding 26 “compromised” papers co-authored by Jaiswal, four of which had been retracted by the time of the letter. The letters were dated between August and September 2016 (and one in February) — although, in some cases, the journals told us they received the letter later. Since that date, three journals have retracted nine papers and corrected another, waiting between four and six months to take action. One journal published an editorial note of concern within approximately two months after the university letter.
And six journals have not taken any public action.
Read the rest of this entry »

[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="][COLOR=#FFFFFF]Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process[/COLOR]
[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=2]A university asked for numerous retractions. Eight months later, three journals have done nothing.[/h]with 2 comments
]Anil Jaiswal
​
When journals learn papers are problematic, how long does it take them to act?
We recently had a chance to find out as part of our continuing coverage of the case of Anil Jaiswal at the University of Maryland, who’s retracted 15 papers (including two new ones we recently identified), and has transitioned out of cancer research. Here’s what happened.
As part of a public records request related to the investigation, we received letters that the University of Maryland sent to 11 journals regarding 26 “compromised” papers co-authored by Jaiswal, four of which had been retracted by the time of the letter. The letters were dated between August and September 2016 (and one in February) — although, in some cases, the journals told us they received the letter later. Since that date, three journals have retracted nine papers and corrected another, waiting between four and six months to take action. One journal published an editorial note of concern within approximately two months after the university letter.
And six journals have not taken any public action.
Read the rest of this entry »

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
I am guessing that since the Journals are a nineteenth century method of spreading scientific knowledge,
they adhere to the nineteenth century response time.:2razz:
 
Interesting....

Where are the guardians of the Climate Galaxy? Where are the keepers of the AGW flame? Not a single comment from any of the usual soldiers sworn to protect the cause?

The silence is deafening..............

:shock:
 
Yeah, and it isn't like the Climate Sciences have a history of hand selecting peer reviewers and failing to submit the raw data and methods with their journal submissions!

... oh, wait...
 
MrPeanut said:
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
Click to expand...

The science deniers jump all over human fallibility when attacking the peer-review process. It's not perfect, but it is self correcting. Perfect systems do not exist, but science can hold it's head high in terms of demonstrable results.
 
jmotivator said:
Yeah, and it isn't like the Climate Sciences have a history of hand selecting peer reviewers and failing to submit the raw data and methods with their journal submissions!

... oh, wait...
Click to expand...

All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.

Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.

You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
 
Russell797 said:
All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.

Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.

You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
Click to expand...

False.

This isn't the only instance. It has been a decades long fight to get people like Hansen, Mann and others to actually make their data and methods available.
 
I think it's because anyone educated really couldn't be claiming that the process of scientific inquiry, including peer review of work, is something we need to abandon. So I hope it's just a troll thread. Notice too that the focus is on climate change science...but when you go to the doctor to get a new drug to save your life, suddenly its not so controversial.

But for arguments sake:

->Please prevent this mystical alternate methodology that leads to the ability to more reliably differentiate truth from falsity as it realities to reality (I.e. science, knowledge, etc.)

I won't actually be expecting a response, because there isn't one. And if you understand why the system is the way it is, and why there is no alternative, then you would never, ever take such a thread seriously. If you think that's arrogance, or wrong, then you must have some form of denial going on that, probably one that has hindered you developmentally, and I can't solve it if you don't recognize the issue, and ask for help resolving it. So yes, my money is on a troll thread, or it's so far beyond the scope of what you'd be willing to do on a public forum to better yourself, that it's not going to be worth anyone's time.
 
Russell797 said:
All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.

Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.

You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
Click to expand...
When you say "All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it." I am not sure that is accurate.
Many of the climategate emails were about denying people access to the data and methodologies used to analyze it.
 
jmotivator said:
False.

This isn't the only instance. It has been a decades long fight to get people like Hansen, Mann and others to actually make their data and methods available.
Click to expand...

Raw climate data is publicly available. Individuals do not own the data. The same data is shared by the several agencies in the several countries which analyse it. They each utilize their own unique and distinct data processing techniques. They all produce somewhat different yet similar results which are consistent across board.
 
Russell797 said:
Raw climate data is publicly available. Individuals do not own the data. The same data is shared by the several agencies in the several countries which analyse it. They each utilize their own unique and distinct data processing techniques. They all produce somewhat different yet similar results which are consistent across board.
Click to expand...

No, not all raw data is publicly available. In fact, much of the raw data used to calculate climate in HADCRUT in the 90s was destroyed.
 
MrPeanut said:
The journal detected the fraud and retracted the papers right? Do you have evidence that any climate science journals don't conduct the extra screening that Tumor Biology just recently started?
Click to expand...

Climate claims don't have to be accurate mike other claims. People's lives are not in imminent danger in the climate sciences like they are in medical related fields.

Far different scrutiny.
 
Russell797 said:
All data is publicly available as are the methodologies used to analyse it.

Peer-reviewer must be expert in the relevant field...what you call hand selecting of reviewers follows for all peer-review.....PEER-review.

You are suggesting deliberate fraud. Take science to court and prove it then.
Click to expand...

jmotivator said:
False.

This isn't the only instance. It has been a decades long fight to get people like Hansen, Mann and others to actually make their data and methods available.
Click to expand...

Jmotivator is right on this account. When I read articles in Nature and other journals outside of the climate sciences, the paper might be 2-3 pages, than another 12 pages or so in methodology. I rarely see open methodology in any AGW related paper.
 
Russell797 said:
Raw climate data is publicly available. Individuals do not own the data. The same data is shared by the several agencies in the several countries which analyse it. They each utilize their own unique and distinct data processing techniques. They all produce somewhat different yet similar results which are consistent across board.
Click to expand...

Methodology of using that data is the only think relevant for assessing accuracy.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Jmotivator is right on this account. When I read articles in Nature and other journals outside of the climate sciences, the paper might be 2-3 pages, than another 12 pages or so in methodology. I rarely see open methodology in any AGW related paper.
Click to expand...

So, when a research team writes a paper concerning the nature of deep sea sediments, glacial run off, solar variability, atmospheric CO2 isotopic ratios, atmospheric IR spectroscopy etc... the methodologies are not explained because the research may impact on climate?

You make it sound like research is AGW specific when it isn't.

Are ice cores drilled in the Antarctic with the expressed purpose of supporting AGW? Maybe it's done just for the sake of understanding the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere in the past, or what temperatures in Antarctica where like in the past?... Just maybe?
 
Russell797 said:
So, when a research team writes a paper concerning the nature of deep sea sediments, glacial run off, solar variability, atmospheric CO2 isotopic ratios, atmospheric IR spectroscopy etc... the methodologies are not explained because the research may impact on climate?

You make it sound like research is AGW specific when it isn't.

Are ice cores drilled in the Antarctic with the expressed purpose of supporting AGW? Maybe it's done just for the sake of understanding the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere in the past, or what temperatures in Antarctica where like in the past?... Just maybe?
Click to expand...

Wow.

You just don't get it. I'm not wasting time explaining it. I'm sure everyone else understands my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom