Discussion:
Scientists get peer-reviewed journals to publish nonsense based on 'Star Wars' to prove a point
(too old to reply)
Mr. B1ack
2017-07-25 11:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:57:34 -0700, "raykeller"
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/07/24/scientists-get-peer-reviewed-journals-publish-nonsense-based-star-wars-prove-point-517468
Scientists get peer-reviewed journals to publish nonsense based on 'Star
Wars' to prove a point
bizpacreview.com ^ | July 24, 2017 | Carmine Sabia | Carmine Sabia
You know all of those peer-reviewed journals that "prove" man-made climate
change is genuine?
It seems they may not be so peer-reviewed or accurate after all.
A neurology expert has unveiled a sting operation he embarked on to show
that many of these journals will publish anything that is sent to them.
Using the names "Dr. Lucas McGeorge" and "Dr. Annette Kin," references to
"Star Wars" creator George Lucas and "Star Wars" character Anakin Skywalker,
on the fictitious "midi-chlorians."
The midi-chlorians live in the cells of Star Wars characters and gives some
of them the power of "the force" which makes them Jedis.
Some journals are better than others - and scientists
know it. There's been increasing traffic in the two
biggies - 'Science' and 'Nature' - about the rise of crappy
outlets for papers with dangerously 'soft' review criteria
or soft-headed "peers" doing reviews.

None of which makes any one paper published there
into automatic garbage though ... just be careful.

The root of the problem is the rapidly-increasing VOLUME
of scientific papers, combined with the "publish or perish"
policies of the scientists employers which promote
quantity over quality.

The number of papers coming out of east asia - China
and India especially - has ballooned to spectacular
proportions over the past 25 years. Eastern europe
and Russia have boosted their output too.

Even though most of it is good research, the sheer
volume overwhelms the top-quality journals. There
just aren't enough "peers" with top creds and enough
time to wade through it all. They have regular jobs too
after all.

SO ... if you can't get your paper published in the relative
handful of top journals - even IF it's great research - yet
you'll be fired as a do-nothing if you can't get published ...
what do you do ?

Well ... you find a 2nd/3rd-tier journal, that's what. It's
not as "prestigious" perhaps, but at least you're out
there in print - "published" - and your bosses are
happy.

These "overflow" journals have become something
of a big business. The problem is that they *pretend*
they're just as good as the likes of 'Science' or 'Nature',
but likely they aren't. Fewer 'peers' and they're likely
to be people you've never heard of - or haven't heard
anything good about.

2nd-rate 'peers' for 2nd-rate journals = increased chance
of 2nd-rate science which misleads and wastes everybody's
time and money further down the road - or worse, is used
to "prove" the need for legal/political/social policies to
be enforced at gunpoint (sometimes literally).

However, none of this means there's no warming or
that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it.
IMHO the human role is over-hyped - as are the
near-cinematic disaster movie consequences
proposed. Most GW research stinks more of politics
than of methane and CO2. Most ...
Michael Ejercito
2017-07-25 18:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
However, none of this means there's no warming or
that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it.
IMHO the human role is over-hyped - as are the
near-cinematic disaster movie consequences
proposed. Most GW research stinks more of politics
than of methane and CO2. Most ...
Did you know that in Earth's distant past, microorganisms actually
radically altered the content of the atmosphere? That is far beyond what
humanity has done or would be capable of doing within the next few decades.


Michael
Frank
2017-07-25 18:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mr. B1ack
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 20:57:34 -0700, "raykeller"
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/07/24/scientists-get-peer-reviewed-journals-publish-nonsense-based-star-wars-prove-point-517468
Scientists get peer-reviewed journals to publish nonsense based on 'Star
Wars' to prove a point
bizpacreview.com ^ | July 24, 2017 | Carmine Sabia | Carmine Sabia
You know all of those peer-reviewed journals that "prove" man-made climate
change is genuine?
It seems they may not be so peer-reviewed or accurate after all.
A neurology expert has unveiled a sting operation he embarked on to show
that many of these journals will publish anything that is sent to them.
Using the names "Dr. Lucas McGeorge" and "Dr. Annette Kin," references to
"Star Wars" creator George Lucas and "Star Wars" character Anakin Skywalker,
on the fictitious "midi-chlorians."
The midi-chlorians live in the cells of Star Wars characters and gives some
of them the power of "the force" which makes them Jedis.
Some journals are better than others - and scientists
know it. There's been increasing traffic in the two
biggies - 'Science' and 'Nature' - about the rise of crappy
outlets for papers with dangerously 'soft' review criteria
or soft-headed "peers" doing reviews.
None of which makes any one paper published there
into automatic garbage though ... just be careful.
The root of the problem is the rapidly-increasing VOLUME
of scientific papers, combined with the "publish or perish"
policies of the scientists employers which promote
quantity over quality.
The number of papers coming out of east asia - China
and India especially - has ballooned to spectacular
proportions over the past 25 years. Eastern europe
and Russia have boosted their output too.
Even though most of it is good research, the sheer
volume overwhelms the top-quality journals. There
just aren't enough "peers" with top creds and enough
time to wade through it all. They have regular jobs too
after all.
SO ... if you can't get your paper published in the relative
handful of top journals - even IF it's great research - yet
you'll be fired as a do-nothing if you can't get published ...
what do you do ?
Well ... you find a 2nd/3rd-tier journal, that's what. It's
not as "prestigious" perhaps, but at least you're out
there in print - "published" - and your bosses are
happy.
These "overflow" journals have become something
of a big business. The problem is that they *pretend*
they're just as good as the likes of 'Science' or 'Nature',
but likely they aren't. Fewer 'peers' and they're likely
to be people you've never heard of - or haven't heard
anything good about.
2nd-rate 'peers' for 2nd-rate journals = increased chance
of 2nd-rate science which misleads and wastes everybody's
time and money further down the road - or worse, is used
to "prove" the need for legal/political/social policies to
be enforced at gunpoint (sometimes literally).
However, none of this means there's no warming or
that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it.
IMHO the human role is over-hyped - as are the
near-cinematic disaster movie consequences
proposed. Most GW research stinks more of politics
than of methane and CO2. Most ...
+1 Been many years since I reviewed publication of a paper but it is
tough to get something through the top notch journals but sometimes
deliberate frauds may get through. Peers that try to replicate results
but repairs can take years. The fraudster, usually a graduate student
working for a professor, may have their degree revoked.

Also agree with your comment on global warming. It is over-hyped.
Loading...