Posted on 06/18/2016 5:07:42 PM PDT by Stayfree
After reading recent thread at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3441601/posts, looked at the source...some interesting reading there which makes one ponder the motives of so many items that need retraction...
Peer review is a joke?
Obviously!
Bookmark
BKMK
I remember reading a recent (about two months ago) article in Scientific American that a very high percentage of peer reviewed studies have results that cannot be replicated. Something like 40%, as I recall. Lots of junk science, dishonest science, and “scientism” out there.
That seems to be a big problem in “Cold Fusion”.
For example, a few years ago, a major drug company reviewed the published literature on cancer in search of new drug targets. Then, with targets identified, they tried duplicating the key published research -- just to make sure -- and were startled to find that much of that research could not be duplicated. The entire project was then abandoned as a waste of effort.
For a more detailed accounting of the defects in published scientific research, I suggest taking a look at: Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance and The misuse and abuse of statistics in biomedical research.
Peer Review seems to be largely Pal Review. Some cases of Open Review seem to have emerged and could be a better system.
Interesting. Thanks for posting. BTTT!
Interesting site. Especially this article:
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/07/conservative-political-beliefs-not-linked-to-psychotic-traits/
Open review has its virtues but remains a work in progress due to the relative lack of a track record. Additional issues arise out of the expense of commercial journal subscriptions, the cartelization of their ownership by a handful of publishers, and increasing specialization of research that makes it hard to find qualified and reliable reviewers. I wonder why major research universities do not establish a consortium to publish a range of nonprofit journals at a cheaper cost and with reformed editorial practices.
I agree that the “journals” are at the center of the perversion of process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.