Peer Reviewed Papers.

[ken]

Perhaps there is no real answer to this post but more of an observation and a declaration of thought:

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

My questions for pondering are the following--and perhaps our readers here may know some of the answers:

1)  We obviously know that fakes can be made anywhere... but how can it get published in a journal without review?
2)  If gibberish papers can be published--what does it say about the review process on those papers that are not gibberish but may have faulty information?
3)  I'm glad that these were found and are being removed but these papers are obvious frauds.  What about those papers that aren't so obvious and simply have faulty data for the purpose of self-glorification i.e.. "I have published technical journals... hire me".

Is it possible that there are so many papers in today's changing world where new discoveries are found daily if not hourly, that the review process may be so overwhelmed as to not have the time to have a good review process?

[stevec]

All I know is that you don't need fancy MIT computer software to identify creationist/ID related jibberish papers. It's amazing that, considering how easy it is to get a jibberish paper published, ID advocates still fail to make that grade.

Did you actually read the article? Do you know how many scientific papers are published every year? 

Some journals operate on the fringe of science, I'm not surprised or upset. Your ID/creationist pseudo-scientists have taken advantage of their services a few times.

[Flitzerbiest]

Mar 2, 2014 8:56:24 GMT -6 ken said:

Perhaps there is no real answer to this post but more of an observation and a declaration of thought:

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

My questions for pondering are the following--and perhaps our readers here may know some of the answers:

1)  We obviously know that fakes can be made anywhere... but how can it get published in a journal without review?
2)  If gibberish papers can be published--what does it say about the review process on those papers that are not gibberish but may have faulty information?
3)  I'm glad that these were found and are being removed but these papers are obvious frauds.  What about those papers that aren't so obvious and simply have faulty data for the purpose of self-glorification i.e.. "I have published technical journals... hire me".

Is it possible that there are so many papers in today's changing world where new discoveries are found daily if not hourly, that the review process may be so overwhelmed as to not have the time to have a good review process?

Hey Ken,

Kudos on your source here. You're reading better stuff. In answer to your question, there are two ways for crap to get published:

1. The publisher wants to publish crap.
2. The publisher isn't paying attention.

The first is self-explanatory but the latter requires more comment. Since publishers are generally in the business of assembling, presenting and producing a written product, they are often in no position to tell whether the content, if complex, is accurate or not. That's not their forte, and this is why peer review exists. Peer review generally includes specialists from multiple field to evaluate the content of the paper.

So the final answer to your question is that gibberish got published here because either their was no peer review at all, or their were reviewers but they didn't do their job. While the second is tragic enough, it is fortunately fairly rare. However, not having peer review at all is far worse than having peer review fail now and then.

[stevec]

Ken,

What types of research would you like to see validated or considered as a consequence of these gibberish research paper discoveries?

[ken]

Mar 2, 2014 10:44:01 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Mar 2, 2014 8:56:24 GMT -6 ken said:

Perhaps there is no real answer to this post but more of an observation and a declaration of thought:

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews

Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

My questions for pondering are the following--and perhaps our readers here may know some of the answers:

1)  We obviously know that fakes can be made anywhere... but how can it get published in a journal without review?
2)  If gibberish papers can be published--what does it say about the review process on those papers that are not gibberish but may have faulty information?
3)  I'm glad that these were found and are being removed but these papers are obvious frauds.  What about those papers that aren't so obvious and simply have faulty data for the purpose of self-glorification i.e.. "I have published technical journals... hire me".

Is it possible that there are so many papers in today's changing world where new discoveries are found daily if not hourly, that the review process may be so overwhelmed as to not have the time to have a good review process?

Hey Ken,

Kudos on your source here. You're reading better stuff. In answer to your question, there are two ways for crap to get published:

1. The publisher wants to publish crap.
2. The publisher isn't paying attention.

The first is self-explanatory but the latter requires more comment. Since publishers are generally in the business of assembling, presenting and producing a written product, they are often in no position to tell whether the content, if complex, is accurate or not. That's not their forte, and this is why peer review exists. Peer review generally includes specialists from multiple field to evaluate the content of the paper.

So the final answer to your question is that gibberish got published here because either their was no peer review at all, or their were reviewers but they didn't do their job. While the second is tragic enough, it is fortunately fairly rare. However, not having peer review at all is far worse than having peer review fail now and then.

Thank you, Flitz.

Points well taken and certainly I can agree with all the points offered.

One more question, are the publishing journals publishing peer reviewed papers?  Or do they publish any material that comes their way?

Steve... if you can get off your soap box, it would be appreciated.  If you want to attract other posters, more intelligent dialogue would be helpful.

[stevec]

Ken,

Point taken, sorry for wrongly anticipating your next move.

Where do you think the discovery of these jibberish science articles should lead us?

[Flitzerbiest]

I don't understand your question Ken.

[stevec]

Ken,

Some journals publish from a philosophy of science perspective. It's not that they choose to publish " just anything", it's more like they are springboards for social or moral questions dealing with science, and sometimes these journals deal with hypothetical scientific questions. As a consequence there's a lot of subjective material that really doesn't require fact checking type peer review.

The reason why I had asked you if you had read the article is because it mentions these jibberish articles appeared in "conference proceedings". I don't know if these conference journals have the same level of peer review found in other scientific journals, but they do seem to be a weak link. To understand the issue, you have to understand the POV of the journal in order to put your faith into the validity of the articles published, not all peer review is created or intended to be equal.

[ken]

Mar 3, 2014 11:43:17 GMT -6 stevec said:

Ken,

Some journals publish from a philosophy of science perspective. It's not that they choose to publish " just anything", it's more like they are springboards for social or moral questions dealing with science, and sometimes these journals deal with hypothetical scientific questions. As a consequence there's a lot of subjective material that really doesn't require fact checking type peer review.

The reason why I had asked you if you had read the article is because it mentions these jibberish articles appeared in "conference proceedings". I don't know if these conference journals have the same level of peer review found in other scientific journals, but they do seem to be a weak link. To understand the issue, you have to understand the POV of the journal in order to put your faith into the validity of the articles published, not all peer review is created or intended to be equal.

Thanks for the informative post.

Fltiz, I think this answers my question

[stevec]

Ken,

Some journals also publish from a design/aesthetics perspective. Again, though heavily math and engineering based, those articles can be very subjective. Think about the beauty of a nautilus shell from a mathematical/engineering perspective.

FYI, I believe I've seen a couple of ID advocates try to use these obscure design/aethetics journals as peer reviewed scientific journals - not really fair when you consider the ID  advocates' real motives and the journals' mission.