Eight Papers Retracted From Journal

AP ^ | Thu Oct 31, 2:10 PM ET | PAUL RECER

[Old Professer]

Haddon said that when researchers combine their studies to produce a single paper, each scientist depends upon the honesty of work contributed by the other co-authors. That, he said, is the way science is supposed to work.

B.S! Peer-review is not supposed to be a "rubber-stamp."

This reflects badly on Science magazine, what I thought was the only true journal left, even after they refused to print so much as a letter to the editor from S. Fred Singer back in the ozone wars after they publicly pooh-pooh'ed his research and credentials.

How one is now expected to believe the amazing claims is going to be problematic at best.

[Old Professer]

Had I read the whole thread I would have put you on the To: line; Singer told me in a phone call that there was friction between him and the editorship.

[AndrewC]

A "Science at work" piece

Bull. It was "police" work. Science at work is DNA evidence correcting the bone-readers false theories.

But not everything was as it seemed. Many scientists were unable to reproduce Schön's results. In April, a small group of physicists noticed that graphs in three unrelated papers appeared identical down to what should have been random noise. Bell Labs rapidly launched an independent investigation, which soon expanded to include two dozen papers.

[scripter]

I learn something new every day. Thanks.

Same here. Thanks.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker.

[AndrewC]

I learn something new every day. Thanks.

Same here. Thanks.

Did anyone here contemplate that experiments were repeated and verified before the results were published and touted as truth? Every study that has been discussed on these threads are apparently one of a kind. From the "legless shrimp" to the "missing finger ostrich" and the most recent "featherless fowl" have not been replicated. The biggest examples of folly are the bone arrangements. In the case of the whale, when numerous DNA studies demonstrated the absolute lunacy of the orthodoxy, it was ignored. Finally some ankle bone changed the minds of the bone arrangers(hi ho silver away) and they grudgingly changed the orthodoxy somewhat. This is what just-so stories produce.

[gore3000]

But after the committee investigation showed Schon's data was suspect, Haddon said he had no choice but to retract the paper.

Seems pretty irresponsible for Haddon to sign on to something he did not know was true. Does he also go around signing blank checks? Bet he does not. Yet he lent his reputation without examining the evidence. Sounds to me like backscratching not science.

This guy Shon was quite a character. There was a long piece about him in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks back. He was really a promoter, not a scientist. He got fired from numerous positions for phonying up experiments. However the employers because of fear of lible suits never revealed the misdeeds or said anything bad about him. Also many of his subsequent employers, impressed by his BS and his unearned fame would hire him without even asking for references. He had been pulling this nonsense for over a decade without getting caught. Quite a shame on the scientific profession.

What the article certainly does show is that because something is in a scientific journal does not mean it is true or that it has been checked for truthfullness. So until the research has been verified independently by others or by subsequent research, it cannot be considered scientifically correct. For this reason any extravagant new claims need to be considered with an analytic mind and taken with more than a grain of salt.

[gore3000]

Science, published weekly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (news - web sites), is one of the top peer-reviewed journals in the world, routinely printing landmark findings in many fields of science.

Well the article clearly showed it is not very well peer-reviewed and that many of the 'landmark findings' are just nonsense. Sorta shows that editors go for headlines instead of truth in 'science' magazines just as much as in the yellow press.

[glc1173@aol.com]

How many more Bellesileses are there out there?

[SkyPilot]

How can academia claim any credibility when our major universities award doctorates in "Gender Theory", "Women's Studies", and "Transgendered Paradigm?"

[dixie sass]

All these years I have been under the mistaken impression that scientist ALWAYS duplicated and verified anothers work before publishing. Not just once but several times. Sad to think that even science is taking shortcuts now just to get "15 minutes of fame".

Once is not always enough just like maybe never gets anything done.

Sighhhhhhhhhhh, another rude awakening.

[laredo44]

I guess what bothers me is that there doesn't sound like there is any sense of urgency to improve the chances of catching stuff by the posters here.

Urgency toward what end?

[laredo44]

When something gets published (an audit report) that is wrong we as a profession try to determine what went wrong and attempt to correct things so that it doesn't happen again.

Of course, first somebody has to determine that something that was published was wrong. How long were the Enron audits public before anyone was aware they were wrong? How long has it been known that they were wrong? Is anybody sure, even now, exactly what happened? You may be giving your profession, which is considerably less complex than research science, more credit than it is due.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One tries to verify that a paper's claims are correct. (In my case, I ususally duplicate the computations and try to independently prove results.) In some cases, for example in a multi-million dollar accelerator experiment, one simply doesn't have the money to duplicate an experiment. What you do is to check if the results are reasonable. I seem to disaprove of more papers than other reviewers I know.

It's also hard to review things such as anti-missle tests when I'm not allowed to buy my own ICBM and anti-missle launchers.

[Axenolith]

Well the article clearly showed it is not very well peer-reviewed and that many of the
'landmark findings' are just nonsense. Sorta shows that editors go for headlines instead
of truth in 'science' magazines just as much as in the yellow press.

---

I've been an AAAS member and recieved the Journal. If an article is out of ones particular field (mine is Geology) there's a fair chance that, not only will it be greek to you, it'll be greek to anyone not at graduate level in the field of the article.

[Crispy]

"I have removed my name from papers where I though the rest of the work was shoddy."

What is your area of expertise? Economics? Just guessing by your nickname.

[hinckley buzzard]

"Peer review" refers to the editorial process by which articles are accepted for publication. You submit an article. It is sent to maybe four to six reviewers, who are knowledgeable in your field. They read it, make suggestions, ask for changes, whatever. You may go through several iterations of this process. When the reviewers are satisfied with the soundness of the article. It may be published.

The process relies on the basic good faith of the author not to submit fraudulent data or false descriptions of methods etc. Given the volume of submissions, there is no other way.

The fraud being caught by subsequent attempts at replication, or application, by colleagues, is the self-correcting function which removed this source of error from the literature.

That's the system. It works for anything of any consequence, but it takes some time. Scientists are human and some of them not very honest humans. Deal with it.

[Asclepius]

... How can academia claim any credibility when our major universities award doctorates in "Gender Theory", "Women's Studies", and "Transgendered Paradigm?" ...

I'll say. I'm pursuing a doctorate in rhetoric, a degree that will richly qualify me to be a barista at starbucks.

Seriously, however, it's the humanities that have lost their way a little bit--post-structuralism, post-modernism, post-this, post-that etc., etc. But they'll come back. They always do. The sciences and professional disciplines are doing well.

[aruanan]

Probably he didn't have the lab setup required to check out Schon's supposed findings so he accepted them on good faith.

Reviewers of papers don't perform the experiments in the paper they are reviewing in order to evaluate the findings. They rely on their previous experience, their knowledge of the field, and their own expectations to judge whether the conclusions of the paper they are reviewing are likely to be supported by the results of the experiments presented in the paper. The usual presentation is 1. background, 2. methods, 3. results, 4. interpretation, 5. conclusions.

A valid review of a paper depends on the honesty of the researcher in the presentation of his data and the competence of the reviewer in assessing the presentation of the data. It also depends on the honesty of the reviewer. One hopes that the reviewer won't torpedo an otherwise good paper because it presents results that contradict the reviewer's own work or scoops the reviewer's own work or gives him the information he needs to bring his own work to completion or simply goes against the reviewer's own theoretical biases (see what Big Bang acolytes do to people like Halton Arp).

The entire enterprise depends on people are smart, highly competitive, and ever mindful of their position in the professional hierarchy. Without honesty and integrity, it's all meaningless. This is why the judgment is often swift and harsh when scientific fraud is uncovered.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Mathematics, Monte Carlo, Statistics, Numerical Analysis, Computer Science, etc. (I do a bit of economics, physics, chemistry and music on the side.)