• 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 naive notion that peer review leads to sound studies.

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Of course none of this comes a surprise to anybody who honestly looked into the Climatgate scandal.

"the journal Nature published a study that attempted to confirm the findings of 53 prominent peer-reviewed papers that present results of lab experiments related to cancer drugs. The scientists were unable to reproduce 94 percent of these results, despite the fact that “when findings could not be reproduced, an attempt was made to contact the original authors, discuss the discrepant findings, exchange reagents and repeat experiments under the authors’ direction, occasionally even in the laboratory of the original investigator.”
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a “detailed review“ of “2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles” that have been retracted. It found that “21.3% of retractions were attributable to error” and “67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%).” The authors also noted that “incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic.”
BioMed Central announced that it had “identified 43 articles” in its peer-reviewed journals “that were published on the basis of reviews from fabricated reviewers.
the journal Tumor Biology retracted more than 100 papers because the editors had “strong reason to believe that the peer review process was compromised.”
Phil Hurst, a publisher for the Royal Society, wrote that “traditional peer review is confidential, with research papers scrutinized by a small number of anonymous experts. Although publishers are vigilant, this secrecy provides the opportunity for fraud.”
Austin L. Hughes, a professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina, wrote that “the high confidence in funding and peer-review panels should seem misplaced to anyone who has served on these panels and witnessed the extent to which preconceived notions, personal vendettas, and the like can torpedo even the best proposals.”
The journal PLOS ONE published an analysis of peer-review practices that states:
“Peer review is the main process by which scientists communicate their work, and is widely regarded as a gatekeeper of the quality of published research. However, its effectiveness remains largely assumed rather than demonstrated.”
Peer review “has limited tools to safeguard the efficiency of the process.
“Reviewers are typically protected by anonymity, and are not rewarded for an accurate and fair job nor held accountable for a sloppy or biased one. Reviewers are thus under little incentive to act in the best interest of science as opposed to their own best interest.”
“We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones.”
Dr. Andy Farke, a vertebrate paleontologist and editor for the scientific journals PLOS ONE and PeerJ, wrote, “I have seen errors or editorial/reviewer lapses in pretty much every journal I have read.”
the journal Nature published an analysis of peer-reviewed papers conducted by “a group of researchers working on obesity, nutrition and energetics.” They found:
“In the course of assembling weekly lists of articles in our field, we began noticing more peer-reviewed articles containing what we call substantial or invalidating errors.”
“After attempting to address more than 25 of these errors with letters to authors or journals, and identifying at least a dozen more, we had to stop—the work took too much of our time.”
“Our efforts revealed invalidating practices that occur repeatedly … and showed how journals and authors react when faced with mistakes that need correction.”
Drummond Rennie, former deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and of the Journal of the American Medical Association, affirmed there “are scarcely any bars to eventual publication” in peer-reviewed journals. Emphasizing the point, he added, “There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature citation too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.”

https://fee.org/articles/epa-s-lack-of-transparency-is-a-breeding-ground-for-junk-science/

**SCATHING***
 
Pal review: After uncovering evidence of “reciprocal favors” related to grant reviews, the NIH is engaging in disciplinary action against reviewers and applicants [link]
 
Too bad they can't discipline bad scientific methodology, and the finding agencies for the climate sciences seem not to care.
 
"Seat belts don't save everybody" is not an argument against having them.
 
"Seat belts don't save everybody" is not an argument against having them.

Given that good seat belts will save some it is important that they are checked and made sure that nobody is driving around with a seat belt that will rip appart in a collision.

Those who fit below quality seat belts should be in jail. Those who lie and call it science should be hung.
 
Science functions poorly in many areas, and is suffering from a massive lack of confidence of the people.....one would think that these people would care and would launch reforms.

You would also have been long disappointed.
 
Given that good seat belts will save some it is important that they are checked and made sure that nobody is driving around with a seat belt that will rip appart in a collision.

Those who fit below quality seat belts should be in jail. Those who lie and call it science should be hung.

Hahah, in addition to blaming people against biofuels for made-up deaths from biofuels, now it's literally "murder anyone who has a scientific opinion I don't like." Nice.
 
Peer reviewed.


[h=1]NASA Gavin Schmidt Searching For the Silurians[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Would it be possible to distinguish the fall of a pre-human civilisation destroyed by industrial CO2, from a natural climate upheaval? A New Study Suggests There Could Have Been Intelligent Life on Earth Before Humans Looking for aliens across deep space is great, but have we looked hard enough in…
Continue reading →
 
And yet, we continually get new medications, new treatments, new technologies all the time, all based on discoveries from science. So pointing out some questionable characters is stupid, considering we know science works. We all use the technologies that work, and are based on science, so that's proof science works. And one person publishing a paper doesn't make it truth among the scientific community. People don't just stop working in an area once a paper published, they try to replicate it and advance the theory further and dig deeper.

Scientists that fudge or falsify data are blacklisted from science. Their careers are over. Peer review has a lot of faults, because it uses human beings. ANd humans have prejudices, biases, etc. So established scientists often will grade higher just based on reputation than less established scientists.

Doesn't help that the funding of the sciences has been stagnant and there are more researchers fighting for less funding. Desperation leads to cutting corners.
 
And yet, we continually get new medications, new treatments, new technologies all the time, all based on discoveries from science. So pointing out some questionable characters is stupid, considering we know science works. We all use the technologies that work, and are based on science, so that's proof science works. And one person publishing a paper doesn't make it truth among the scientific community. People don't just stop working in an area once a paper published, they try to replicate it and advance the theory further and dig deeper.

Scientists that fudge or falsify data are blacklisted from science. Their careers are over. Peer review has a lot of faults, because it uses human beings. ANd humans have prejudices, biases, etc. So established scientists often will grade higher just based on reputation than less established scientists.

Doesn't help that the funding of the sciences has been stagnant and there are more researchers fighting for less funding. Desperation leads to cutting corners.

People have died because of shoddy papers. Medical research to drugs takes YEARS in part BECAUSE of horrible drugs of the past based in shoddy papers.

Medical Science work, several deaths at a time.
 
People have died because of shoddy papers. Medical research to drugs takes YEARS in part BECAUSE of horrible drugs of the past based in shoddy papers.

Medical Science work, several deaths at a time.
Not really a funny story, but in the 80's I was trying to develop an all weather fiber optic cable for seismic applications.
My latest attempt had made through the warm weather test with flying colors.
We placed our test fiber in the ultracold overnight.
The next day, we checked the cold fiber, the test was a complete failure.
The other Engineer, who had been an Air Force test pilot, said, "Well at least no one died!"
 
People have died because of shoddy papers. Medical research to drugs takes YEARS in part BECAUSE of horrible drugs of the past based in shoddy papers.

Medical Science work, several deaths at a time.

That is fiction

Medical research takes years because human biology is complete and requires extensive tests. First off, you have to discover a new compound that works on a target. Then you have to improve the chemistry it to make it work better. Then text in various in vitro tests. Then have to do studies in animals to show it works. That the drug doesn't get metabolized into something dangerous or ineffective, that is actually goes to the target tissue. All the while tweaking the chemistry. Have to figure out if the drug can be taken orally, of how stable it is, if its water soluble, and tweak the chemistry to make it better. Then you have safety studies in humans, see how the human body metabolizes is, where the drug goes in the body, how stable it is, how long it lasts in the body to help determine dosage. Then you have to do many years of clinical trials in humans.

Oh, and then you have that patients have different genetics, different diets, lifestyles, other preexisting conditions. People don't die from drugs becausew of shoddy science, the drug would never get to patients if the science was shoddy to even kill them. People die because chemistry is difficult and the variations in humans are so large its impossible to predict how every patient will react.

And the number one cause of negative effects of medicine on people are people not following directions on how to take it
 
People have died because of shoddy papers. Medical research to drugs takes YEARS in part BECAUSE of horrible drugs of the past based in shoddy papers.

Medical Science work, several deaths at a time.

(Citation needed)
 
Not really a funny story, but in the 80's I was trying to develop an all weather fiber optic cable for seismic applications.
My latest attempt had made through the warm weather test with flying colors.
We placed our test fiber in the ultracold overnight.
The next day, we checked the cold fiber, the test was a complete failure.
The other Engineer, who had been an Air Force test pilot, said, "Well at least no one died!"

Funny..because it shows how low stakes your work was.

Inadvertent death and disability is something I deal with daily. Maybe that’s why I’m hyper aware and hypersensitive about following the latest science and gathering the best information possible.

It’s up close and personal too. It’s not theoretical deaths...it’s the person in front of you, dying because you didn’t know the latest research.

You read single papers that sound like what you want to hear and ignore others.

Did you know a new ECS paper was published? Probably not, since it doesn’t say what you want to hear.

ACP - The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity

Oh, well. People will die from denier attitudes. But you csnt point to anyone specific, so it’s not your fault!
 
This whole thread is attacking a strawman.

Nobody claims that peer review will necessarily lead to sound studies. Peer review is simply a way to weed out the obviously poor papers. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for a paper to be regarded as sound. A paper that has not passed peer review is worthless; a paper that has passed peer review may have some worth. As a corollary, articles published on blogs should not be taken seriously unless they are accurately based on peer-reviewed work.
 
Of course none of this comes a surprise to anybody who honestly looked into the Climatgate scandal.
:roll:

Are you really so desperate to discredit climatology that you cite problems with peer review in completely unrelated disciplines?

Do you really not know that Climategate was a Nothingburger?
 
:roll:

Are you really so desperate to discredit climatology that you cite problems with peer review in completely unrelated disciplines?

Do you really not know that Climategate was a Nothingburger?

Kitty Genovese syndrome.
 
This whole thread is attacking a strawman.

Nobody claims that peer review will necessarily lead to sound studies. Peer review is simply a way to weed out the obviously poor papers. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion for a paper to be regarded as sound. A paper that has not passed peer review is worthless; a paper that has passed peer review may have some worth. As a corollary, articles published on blogs should not be taken seriously unless they are accurately based on peer-reviewed work.

After Climatgate peer review in climate science can stand only for groupthink.
 
Too bad they can't discipline bad scientific methodology, and the finding agencies for the climate sciences seem not to care.

The climate peer review process has been slammed and condemned more times than i can count.
I found an article on this a long time ago and can't find it again.

Basically the independent review board said that it was nothing more than confirmation bias being spread around.

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report | Climate Depot

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100831/ipcc-procedures-get-tough-rebuke-distinguished-panel
"For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020," the report said. "Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented."
 
The climate peer review process has been slammed and condemned more times than i can count.
I found an article on this a long time ago and can't find it again.

Basically the independent review board said that it was nothing more than confirmation bias being spread around.

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report | Climate Depot

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100831/ipcc-procedures-get-tough-rebuke-distinguished-panel
"For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely-quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020," the report said. "Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented."

That's because there is a giant international conspiracy involving every scientific agency and country on the planet. LOL
 
That's because there is a giant international conspiracy involving every scientific agency and country on the planet. LOL
Are you saying that a review of the IPCC by the UN is part of a global conspiracy?
Here is the report,
http://reviewipcc.interacademycounc...of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC.pdf
For example, authors reported high confidence in statements for
which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that
agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020.
Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague
they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left,
incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.
Not a blog but an IPCC assessment report.
 
Back
Top Bottom