Eight Papers Retracted From Journal

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

[Doctor Stochastic]

One generally assumes that the authors are honest. The review process is designed to weed out mistakes rather than fraud. This is why those exposed of fraud get (or should get, anyway) harsh punishment. Schon, Bellesiles, Presidential Historian Doris Kerans Goodwin, and others should not be trusted. I treat them like I do the Clintons. If they happen to agree with me, I can assume they have been misinformed.

[aruanan]

The review process is designed to weed out mistakes rather than fraud.

Exactly. This is why I said that reviewers don't repeat all the experiments in the paper. Interestingly, though, the lab in which I'm doing a post-doc reviewed a paper not too long ago. My boss, based on his work with this same protein, simply did not believe some of the results or the conclusions drawn from them. The journal went ahead and published the paper. As a result, I'll be recreating their DNA mutant constructs and repeating the experiments. If things turn out as we believe they will, we'll probably not be able to get the results published in that journal.

[gore3000]

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.

Not quite. For example there was a peer reviewed article here a month or two back about some nutcase 'scientist' who said that global warming would cause the earth's core to blow up. There is also a pretty silly article on evolution up right now one about chicken feathers which is totally shameful. So yes, intelligent people can see through some of the nonsense that is published as 'science'. It is only those who bow before the altar of 'credentials' that are fooled by such stuff. Scientists are human and guess what - they lie just as much as regular folk.

[gore3000]

One generally assumes that the authors are honest.

...and there's the problem, scientists are no more saintly than the rest of humanity. To treat them as such is both foolish and unwarranted.

[VOA]

As a CPA, this wouldn't work in my business. If you folks look at this as some
endorsement of your faith in published science I would ask you to rethink your conclusion.
How are you so sure that other peer reviewed articles are not also suspect ?

As a researcher, it doesn't work in my line of work (biochemistry)...at least not for long.
To some degree, I think this may be why academics are NOT well-compensated for the most
part.
Attaining any sort of retirement usually means keeping the career intact for multiple decades.
Generally speaking, there are no Michael Milkins who can score big, cough up a fraction
of their ill-gotten gains, serve a fraction of a jail sentence and emerge with millions
in the bank and job offers.

In real science, once someone does what this fellow did...it's OVER.

If you really believe in a system that polices itself you ought to be outraged about
this gey getting so many for so long.

Honestly, there is plenty of outrage when this sort of thing gets discovered.
Espeically in academia where there are probably at least a couple of groups that
DIDN"T get their grant funded, while a fraud got plenty of money.

While it is sometimes dispiriting to see these sort of episodes, what is generally
good about American/Western science is that the peer review does keep the standards high
enough to keep out MOST harmful fraud.

But over the years, one does grow philisophical.
The aged chairman of the graduate department that I attended once quietly told
me that he suspected that about 1/3 of published scientific papers were true and honest,
1/3 might have flaws that were the result of honest mistakes or flawed interpretation
that even experienced reviewers couldn't spot, and about 1/3 is either truly suspect or
fraudulent.

But...as Churchill said about democracy...it's an awful system...but not as bad
as any other one yet devised.

[VRWC_minion]

It seems to me that in any other human endeavor when mistakes happen the natural reaction is to at least look at what might be done to avoid the same errors in the future. This is true from a waiter serving the wrong meal, and editor missing mistakes, a quality control letting flawed products go to market. All sorts of examples.

However in the area of peer review for scientists all I hear from them is "Oh well, this is as good as it gets. ".....I really don't understand that sentiment. Its contrary to normal human nature as well as common sense.

Maybe it is as good as it gets but no one really knows that unless an review is done. One of the things that troubles me most about it is that apparently some readers of the articles saw flaws enough in reading them studies that they did additional work to uncover the fraud. If it was obvious to readers why wasn't it at least questionable to the reviewers ?

The more I here from scientists on this thread the more I conclude they are themselves afraid of subjecting their own work to more scrutiny. That is the only way I can fathom the reluctance of doing serious reflection of the current process.

[VOA]

However in the area of peer review for scientists all I hear from them is "Oh well,
this is as good as it gets. ".....I really don't understand that sentiment.
Its contrary to normal human nature as well as common sense.

Things are relative.
The scientific peer review used in the USA/West is better than what the rest of the
world has tried.
And still needs refining and improvement.

Just like the world of accounting.
There are fallible humans in the sciences and every other profession.
And the only way to stop them from causing problems...would be to
either put the profession out of business...or to erect so many controls that nobody in their
right mind would want to enter it.

And, from what I've seen in science, the moral upbringing does make a difference.
With the increasing number of people with no real moral underpinning in their life,
it will be easier and easier for scientists (and other professionals) to stray
from the straight and narrow (and challenging) path of being honest and truthful,
no matter how painful.

[VRWC_minion]

Just like the world of accounting. There are fallible humans in the sciences and every other profession.

Of course. But the knee jerk reaction of every CPA I know is that when stuff like this happens we pull out our standards and review them to see what went wrong and what could be done about it if anything.

And the only way to stop them from causing problems...would be to either put the profession out of business...or to erect so many controls that nobody in their right mind would want to enter it. ,

Cost benefit is a CPA's middle name. It is wrong to assume that controls must be too expensive to implement. But it takes a carefull consideration of what went wrong, what steps might be cost effective to apply if any, and recommend changes. This is the normal process in my profession as well as most others.

But again by your responses to me you reinforce the impression that scientists apparently believe their current system is as good as it possibly can ever get. I still don't get that sentiment. So far to date no human designed process is as good as it can get. But maybe you are correct. Scientists may be perfect.

[VOA]

But again by your responses to me you reinforce the impression that scientists
apparently believe their current system is as good as it possibly can ever get.

from my previous post:
The scientific peer review used in the USA/West is better than what the rest of the world has tried.
And still needs refining and improvement.

Nice to see that someone besides me misses things in other people's posts.
It's understandable...lots of us are distracted given all the Republican election wins...

[Doctor Stochastic]

I am not afraid at all of having my work examined. I strongly resent your insinuations.

If you have a better method than peer review, please post it. Else, you are just bitching about things of which you are ignorant.

[VRWC_minion]

If you have a better method than peer review, please post it. Else, you are just bitching about things of which you are ignorant.

I am not questioning the peer review. What I am questioning is a process of reflecting on the cuurent peer review process and look at it for improvements. It seems that the folks posting here don't think that is necessary. That surprises me and leads me to wonder why. If it leads to the conclusion that many don't want harder scrutiny that would make sense. Other wise I cannot make sense of the reluctance to reveiw the current process when problems like this occur.

[Doctor Stochastic]

What do your suggest. Review by non-peers? Publish unreviewed papers?

Peer review is always being scrutinized. The only suggestions so far are to have the referees names public. Currently, referees are anonymous. Neither are referees paid. I spend a few hours (maybe 10 or so) on a paper, but I don't get paid. Would paying referees help?

If you have an idea, let us know, I'll pass it on.

[VRWC_minion]

You tell me. I would think the process starts with identifying what went wrong. Its good to see that finally someone asked the question at least. Thanks.

[gore3000]

Currently, referees are anonymous.

Well, that's one big problem right there. When people do not get paid and do not have to sign their name and put their reputation on the line that is not of much value. As they say, you get what you pay for and they are paying nothing and are not putting their reputation on the line.

In addition, one has to realize what these peer reviewed articles are - they are the result of publish or perish. They try to put out stuff no one has ever thought of and thus go out on a limb for it. The reviewers know this and since they are part of the system too, they will wink at a lot of the nonsense that gets published and just pass it on. In other words, the system does not keep the writers honest.

[Doctor Stochastic]

they will wink at a lot of the nonsense that gets published and just pass it on

You are wrong on this. Every reviewer (myself included) take the job seriously. We do not "wink at a lot of nonsense" at all. I have rejected articles for nonsense, typos, bad writing, and other reasons. Your attacks are completely uncalled for and show a fundamental ignorance of how scientific publishing works.

[gore3000]

Your attacks are completely uncalled for and show a fundamental ignorance of how scientific publishing works.

No they are not and I have given examples already of nonsense papers. In fact over half of these papers are utter nonsense and are either wrong or totally valueless. Scientists are subject to the same pressures as everyone else, they are human and they also lie and exagerate. In addition as I said, when someone does not have to put their name and their reputation on something, then they do not take it very seriously. They may throw out the real garbage, but you can bet they let a lot of worthless stuff in. Also as the article points out the criteria is 'could this be true' not is this definitely true.

[HiTech RedNeck]

In April, a small group of physicists noticed that graphs in three unrelated papers appeared identical down to what should have been random noise.

This guy sounds more diabolical than just a cheat. He thought he'd get away with his prank and left his fingerprint upon it... on purpose, as a challenge to the authorities like the tarot cards of the sniper. If merely creating phony data was his goal, how hard would it be to create a unique set of it for each experiment?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yes, it relies heavily -- perhaps too heavily -- on the integrity of the individuals involved.

And with that you have put a brighter spotlight on the problem than you imagined. If the general corpus sells itself out to a certain world view, then the truth they suppose themselves to establish suffers. It's like politics; just because a legislature debates doesn't mean that it will arrive at a sensible answer.

[PatrickHenry]

Me:
"Yes, it [peer review] relies heavily -- perhaps too heavily -- on the integrity of the individuals involved."

You:
And with that you have put a brighter spotlight on the problem than you imagined. If the general corpus sells itself out to a certain world view, then the truth they suppose themselves to establish suffers. It's like politics; just because a legislature debates doesn't mean that it will arrive at a sensible answer.

I'm not sure what it is that you have in mind. Yes, the reviewers are all scientists. That is not a lapse in integrity. And there will never be a regime in which the work of scientists is "peer reviewed" by theologians. One Galileo injustice is enough.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I'm not sure what it is that you have in mind... One Galileo injustice ...

Decoded: "I'm absolutely sure what you have in mind."