SCIENTISTS.....Peer review fraud article (link)

[Michael.Felli]

Just the tip of the iceberg???

HIT IT!

 

[fairfaxlion2]

I think the larger issue is that the entire profession of academia is based upon becoming a prolific publisher of peer reviewed articles, which led to a vast expansion in the number of journals, most of which result in publications that nobody ever reads.

 

[N&B4PSU]

yes

the comments section was enlightening... apparently some failed to read that this was not necessarily an isolated event and might just well be the tip of the iceberg (no, that is not a quote, simply a reasonable inference). This could well cross into other disciplines and not be confined to bio-med.

it is likely to impact everything... no study should be deemed off-limits and worthy of another look-see. in theory, that makes sense.

will it happen? let's see.

 

[bjf1984]

Even more than that Fairfax.....


you've got folks publishing "articles" in scholarly journals for the (pre-determined) purpose of furthering one particular agenda (often a social or economic agenda)

 

[Steve G]

Article emphasizes these were Chinese

The pressure to publish in China academic structure is immense and there is wide spread corruption and data fabrication. Pretty much any biomedical publication coming solely out of China is highly suspect.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

LOL. I had not noticed. Well, apparently works good for.....


serving a middle ground where some alarmists and some anti-science people can agree on something.

LOL.2
This post was edited on 3/30 9:41 AM by Ten Thousan Marbles

 

[T J]

Re: Article emphasizes these were Chinese

Originally posted by Steve G:
The pressure to publish in China academic structure is immense and there is wide spread corruption and data fabrication. Pretty much any biomedical publication coming solely out of China is highly suspect.

Interesting comment about studies from China.

A similar controversy arose from China, regarding the UN IPCC's claim regarding the Urban Heat Island Effect - UHI Effect

UHI Effect is the increase in air temperatures from man-made cities, that comes from heat given off from increases in Concrete, Asphalt, Steel, Bricks, Cars/Trucks, Air Conditioning Exhausts, Building Heating Systems, etc. It also addresses the increase in ground temperature readings over time, as rural temp stations's cooler temps change to warmer temps, as the Urban sprawl envelops them, which adds a warming bias to the data, that has nothing to do with climate.

The UN IPCC's UHI Effect claim was based upon a study in China. It didn't pass the smell test (and has been debunked by further studies). The Alarmists' irrational claims were of course challenged by rational skeptical scientists. They wanted to see the location of the temperature stations used in the study and to do an independent Scientific Method review of the data, as is required in legitimate science.

The climate scientists refused to release their data from the China-based study, until a FOI request was filed.

The result was that there was no data that supported the claim touted in headlines and used by the international organization UN IPCC and their so-called "all the scientists in the world." The Alarmists' irrational claims were again unsupported.

It is another in a long line of examples in favor of the rational skeptical scientists' approach, who support the Scientific Method's independent review of claims, over the agenda-driven Alarmists' falsifications, manipulations and unsupported claims.

So... your comment regarding problem studies from China is interesting, since the so-called group of "all the scientists in the world at the UN IPCC" were played for fools for many years, by a bogus "study" from China.
The Alarmists had never even checked to see if any data existed to support their IPCC Report's irrational claim. Had the Alarmists even done the most basic review, they would have found the data didn't exist. [/B]
From a review...

Professor in leaked email scandal tried to hide fact that numbers he used were wrong[/I]
The "climategate" controversy intensified last night when the senior British scientist at its centre, Professor Phil Jones, faced fresh accusations that he attempted to withhold data that could cast doubt on evidence for rising world temperatures.
…
But the new allegations go beyond refusing FOI requests and concern data that Professor Jones and other scientists have used to support a record of recent world temperatures that shows an upward trend.
Climate sceptics have suggested that some of the higher readings may be due not to a warmer atmosphere, but to the so-called "urban heat island effect", where cities become reservoirs of heat and are warmer than the surrounding countryside, especially during the night hours.
Professor Jones and a colleague, Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of the State University of New York at Albany suggested in an influential 1990 paper in the journal Nature that the urban heat island effect was minimal - and cited as supporting evidence a long series of temperature measurements from Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities, supplied by Professor Wei-Chyung.

The Nature paper was used as evidence in the most recent report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, it has been reported that when climate sceptics asked for the precise locations of the 84 stations, Professor Jones at first declined to release the details. And when eventually he did release them, it was found that for the ones supposed to be in the countryside, there was no location given.
Climate sceptics have demanded the two professors now withdraw their heat island paper.

This post was edited on 3/30 4:18 PM by T J

 

[Ski]

Does this mean the science is not settled.....

......just because 98% of scientists agree? Is there any chance the high priests of science are using fraudulent data extrapolated from real data that they manipulated then destroyed before critics could see it? Then might they have followed that up with fraudulent peer reviews? Is there a chance that 98% really don't agree, but many don't speak up because of peer pressure and the potential loss of funding for being a heretic?

I imagine that iceberg goes outside of the biomedical community. $$$$ corrupts everywhere.

Who can you trust? Mann, what a dilemma for the average person.

 

[T J]

Re: Does this mean the science is not settled.....

Originally posted by Ski:
......just because 98% of scientists agree? Is there any chance the high priests of science are using fraudulent data extrapolated from real data that they manipulated then destroyed before critics could see it? Then might they have followed that up with fraudulent peer reviews? Is there a chance that 98% really don't agree, but many don't speak up because of peer pressure and the potential loss of funding for being a heretic?

I imagine that iceberg goes outside of the biomedical community. $$$$ corrupts everywhere.

Who can you trust? Mann, what a dilemma for the average person.

From review...

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere.

The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it


"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

This post was edited on 3/30 5:41 PM by T J