Scientific sting operation shows how fake science garbage gets published in peer-reviewed journals

Scientific sting operation shows how fake science garbage gets published in peer-reviewed journals

https://ift.tt/2zSsEMy

Long-time WUWT reader “Latitude” writes:

Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on ‘dog rape culture’, ‘a conceptual penis’ and re-printing a version of MEIN KAMPF

Their aim was to expose how ‘absurdities’ get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.

In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as ‘grievance studies’.

These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just ‘nutty or inhumane’ ideas that they ran with.

The authors claim their prank shows that higher education’s fixation with identity politics has created ‘absurd and horrific’ scholarship, according to an in-depth piece by Wall Street Journal.

They even associated male anatomy with climate change.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6239071/Academic-journals-caught-massive-hoax-involving-20-FAKE-papers.html


BTW, this excellent post in 2016 was prescient:

Science Is In Deep Trouble, New Paper Shows

‘Fraudulent research makes it past gatekeepers at even the most prestigious journals’

peer-review-josh-donnapeer-review-josh-donna

And just this year, there was another expose’

Ooops: “lid blown off” the trustworthiness of scientific peer review

According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.

“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.

“Medicine, epidemiology, population science, and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.

When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.

 

Superforest,Climate Change

via Watts Up With That? https://ift.tt/1Viafi3

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s