Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,433 Posts
And the vast majority aren't withdrawn. Meanwhile, when religion and science conflict, religion says the facts must be wrong. But the fact that they never retract does not mean they are right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,304 Posts
There's some level of malfeasance and bad behavior in everything. This shouldn't be a surprise, given the level of competition and ambition in scientific research.

Now let's talk about malfeasance in the financial sector. In Europe and the US.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
Only 300 per year retracted out of who knows how many published. I didn't read the entire article yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if a disproportionate number of them come from "lower quality" journals.

I still have plenty of faith in the process, and that there is an increasing number of studies being identified as 'fradulent' is, in my opinion, a good thing. The process works. (this point, I think, was made in the earlier thread).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,337 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
This article actually proves that the system of scientific peer review works.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,735 Posts
Thank God somebody is checking their work.

I'm sure it's related to obtaining grants. Research comes up empty, lose your funding. Hey lets lie. I need my job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
That's why the peer review system works better than any other system for the dissemination of information and research. Yes, there are some bad eggs, but they will eventually get caught, and their mistakes/malpractices exposed.

Compare this to the "research" done on things like homeopathy and "alternative medicines". The fact that none of that is peer reviewed means that any claims they make could well be fraudulent, and we will never know...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
"Dr. Benjamin G. Druss, a professor of health policy of Emory University, said he found the statistics in the paper to be sound but added that they “need to be kept in perspective.” Only about one in 10,000 papers in PubMed have been officially retracted, he noted. By contrast, 112,908 papers have had published corrections. "
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I saw this resurrection of the old thread last week and waited for something exciting to be revealed. Nada, same old, same old.

The belief that by finding only a small percentage of submitted papers to be fraudulent proves the entire system works is funny. It simply means to many papers have yet to be reviewed.

The article showed that these scientists, who under took this review, haven't even touched the surface of peer reviews and with thousands of papers regarding everything, from global warming to pimples on your butt, coming out every year they need alot more help.

To stand by the assertion that because something printed by a scientific group and has not been retracted is proof of validity is sad. It simply means other scientists haven't had a chance to review it yet. The fact that we can't debate with out drawing in religion, politics, or current fads dooms any meaningful discussion is sad.

The points made about why scientists publish rubbish is right on. Publish or parish, publish or lose grants, publish or lose face with colleagues, publish or be kicked out of the cliche.
We have hundreds if not thousands of agencies and groups around the world who's sole purpose is to protect us from bogus claims yet they them selves get caught up with a single cause and lose sight of who they were to protect from whom. As always IMHO
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
I guess then we should just assume that all of the scientific studies are wrong then, something like guilty until proven innocent?

It's too bad the world's best scientists are such a stupid, greedy lot. It's a wonder why we have advanced as far as we have. It must be due to sheer luck, or divine intervention, because clearly we can't credit scientists.
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I guess then we should just assume that all of the scientific studies are wrong then, something like guilty until proven innocent?

It's too bad the world's best scientists are such a stupid, greedy lot. It's a wonder why we have advanced as far as we have. It must be due to sheer luck, or divine intervention, because clearly we can't credit scientists.
Not all Juni. The statement was made that beings just a tiny amount of false papers were found that it proved the vast majority were true, correct, perfect. If as much as 50% of all scientific research was proven suspect we would still be where we are today. The vast majority of papers are theory and update to existing, not new and life changing. My point was and is with the huge increase over the last several decades in research we haven't had time or resources to peer review it all. Doesn't mean glass is half empty.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,862 Posts
So are you thinking the peer review process is stressed because of the volume of published research? There might be something to that, which is why I made the point above that it could be more likely that the worst and most retracted studies are published in lower quality journals.

My direct experience is limited to some Social Science journals. And the quality of the journals I targeted for my studies varied considerably. The top three or four were extremely difficult to get published in because the best academics were the ones peer reviewing the submitted studies. Each submission independently reviewed by three 'established' researchers. Some of them even requiring a separate submission of data and analysis so they can check your results. I trust the research of those select few journals because the review process was so stringent.

The rest though, were hit and miss for sure, but publications in those didn't weigh nearly as heavily as the top three as a result. Not that the studies in those lower quality journals were or are wrong, it's just that the hypotheses and results weren't as strong. Studies in non-peer reviewed journals should be ignored, and largely were when I worked in that world.

My point here is that the source of information is extremely important to consider. The more a source is likely to be influenced by politics or profit, for example, the less emphasis they should receive in the scientific community.

It takes a lot of time and effort to thoroughly review a submitted study. If the volume of studies is at the point that reviewers are overwhelmed, then yes, it could be a problem. But I also think that there are a lot of other factors at play here and I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Not all Juni. The statement was made that beings just a tiny amount of false papers were found that it proved the vast majority were true, correct, perfect.
I don't think anyone has made that claim... Care to point out where it was said?


The belief that by finding only a small percentage of submitted papers to be fraudulent proves the entire system works is funny. It simply means to many papers have yet to be reviewed.
...

...To stand by the assertion that because something printed by a scientific group and has not been retracted is proof of validity is sad. It simply means other scientists haven't had a chance to review it yet....
That's some great special pleading there, Hap... A tiny number of papers have been retracted: That must mean we aren't looking hard enough. Hypothetical situation; if, say, 30% of papers were retracted, would that give MORE validity to the peer review system? How about if 0% were retracted? I'm sure in both situations, you'd be able to use it to demonstrate how science is flawed...
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I don't think anyone has made that claim... Care to point out where it was said?




That's some great special pleading there, Hap... A tiny number of papers have been retracted: That must mean we aren't looking hard enough. Hypothetical situation; if, say, 30% of papers were retracted, would that give MORE validity to the peer review system? How about if 0% were retracted? I'm sure in both situations, you'd be able to use it to demonstrate how science is flawed...
You could read the entire thread and it might answer your assertions Demonic.:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
I've just re-read the whole thing, and still can't see anyone say anything remotely like "just a tiny amount of false papers were found that it proved the vast majority were true, correct, perfect."...

I think maybe YOU need to read the entire thread. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Two. But I'm not saying which.
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I've just re-read the whole thing, and still can't see anyone say anything remotely like "just a tiny amount of false papers were found that it proved the vast majority were true, correct, perfect."...

I think maybe YOU need to read the entire thread. :)
Article in the first post that was quoted and post #8. Oh wait, that was you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,424 Posts
Yup. And you'll see that the guy quoted said that a tiny number were retracted, and and 112 908 were corrected. That's not really the same as saying apart from the ones that were retracted, the rest were perfect, is it?
 
H

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Yup. And you'll see that the guy quoted said that a tiny number were retracted, and and 112 908 were corrected. That's not really the same as saying apart from the ones that were retracted, the rest were perfect, is it?
I am very sorry Demonic. I thought you had read the actual study used for the article as was quoted stating 27,000 scientific article a week come in, 200 are ultimately corrected and 5-6 are retracted.

Richard Van Noordan 10/5/11 in the Journal of nature referenced in first paragraph of article.

Sorry I miss understood your statement. Wont ever happen again, I promise.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top