Peer review fraud, Peer review failure

This is a report on a scandal in an obscure journal, and peer review has come under more scrutiny.

Although this is a fraud story, peer review is not as good as you would imagine, even in the best of circumstances.

I would recommend you consider that an even more pervasive form of misconduct or peer review corruption is incestuous relationships that develop around trolling for government funding.

I favorably review your article and publish it and you scratch my itch too. Tit for tat in academia? Naturally.

For example the club of air pollution researchers that are published frequently is relatively small, and not very divergent. Consensus rules, and social/economic/academic relationships influence things–so that a consensus is developed.

I know you all are aware of the Kuhn book on scientific paradigms–I get sick of people talking about how their new study will change the paradigm. The “paradigm” is often the product of a social herd tendency that academics have.

The Richard Feynman warning about the cargo cult science that develops in a social environment like academia is honored more in the breach. To our continued disadvantage.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/scientific_corruption_exposed_peer_review_ring_busted.html

About these ads

6 responses to “Peer review fraud, Peer review failure

  1. Bad vibes on this one?

  2. If “scientists” are cheating in an organized fashion for something so obscure, what does it say for research that involves big money and global prestige?

  3. The PNAS ‘old boys’ club’: NAS members can ‘choose who will review their paper’

    Posted at WUWT

  4. Hank de Carbonel

    If you rely on Peers R Us what would you expect? I suspect a darker purpose could be applied. It could be used to send adversaries toward false technologies for instance. Or just to find out what others have interests in.Of course just getting gobs of money is always attractive. Simple is usually best.

  5. Having your friends and associates review your work has always been a dubious way to verify science. Duplicating the observations or experiment with an independent analysis is usually much better… with the exception of virtual experiments, such as climate models. Science on the bleeding edge is often messy and prone to frequent revisions. Some sciences are driven more by politics than by reason.

  6. There appears to be a confusion between properly performed independent peer review and “peer review” performed by many journals and some government agencies. Our book “Peer Review and Scientific assessment” was published in January of 2013 and based on many misdeeds of journal editors and others we are about to prepare its second edition addressing potential remedies.The subject is too complex to be discussed here. However, let us use an example to demonstrate the point. If a surgeon performs poorly and causes adverse results it does not mean that surgery as such is unacceptable. Please visit our website at http://www.nars.org for additional information

    A. Alan Moghissi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s