Peer Review: bad science (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Tuesday, February 25, 2014, 15:18 (3712 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George: Publishers withdraw 120 gibberish papers! > > http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763&a... > Labbé developed a way to automatically detect manuscripts composed by a piece of software called SCIgen, which randomly combines strings of words to produce fake computer-science papers.-Still more evidence of the publish or perish aspect of grantsmanship. When easy money is thrown at science to speed up research progress, fraud and garbage appear.
Complete thread:
- Peer Review: latest review -
David Turell,
2012-10-09, 14:56
![[*]](themes/default/images/complete_thread.png "Open whole thread")
- Peer Review: another mess -
David Turell,
2013-02-26, 14:42
- Peer Review: another mess -
David Turell,
2013-05-30, 15:19
- Peer Review: another opinion -
David Turell,
2013-06-25, 15:33
- Peer Review: another sting works -
David Turell,
2013-10-04, 15:46
- Peer Review: another sting works - BBella, 2013-10-04, 17:16
- Peer Review: another sting works -
George Jelliss,
2013-10-04, 17:49
- The future of science publishing -
George Jelliss,
2013-10-12, 00:08
- The future of science publishing - David Turell, 2013-10-12, 02:10
- Peer Review: another says bad -
David Turell,
2013-10-15, 18:33
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2013-10-20, 01:08
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2013-11-22, 01:24
- Peer Review: bad science -
George Jelliss,
2014-02-25, 08:31
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2014-02-25, 15:18
- Peer Review: more fraud -
David Turell,
2014-07-09, 01:55
- Peer Review: good review -
David Turell,
2014-09-28, 15:20
- Peer Review: more study retractions -
David Turell,
2014-12-10, 22:06
- Peer Review: shoddy publishing -
David Turell,
2014-12-17, 00:44
- Peer Review: 2014 retraction review -
David Turell,
2014-12-23, 14:39
- Peer Review: Double blind reviews -
David Turell,
2015-02-19, 15:07
- Peer Review: More mess -
David Turell,
2015-03-27, 22:08
- Peer Review: More retractions - David Turell, 2015-08-18, 14:03
- Peer Review: More mess -
David Turell,
2015-03-27, 22:08
- Peer Review: Double blind reviews -
David Turell,
2015-02-19, 15:07
- Peer Review: 2014 retraction review -
David Turell,
2014-12-23, 14:39
- Peer Review: shoddy publishing -
David Turell,
2014-12-17, 00:44
- Peer Review: more study retractions -
David Turell,
2014-12-10, 22:06
- Peer Review: good review -
David Turell,
2014-09-28, 15:20
- Peer Review: more fraud -
David Turell,
2014-07-09, 01:55
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2014-02-25, 15:18
- Peer Review: bad science -
George Jelliss,
2014-02-25, 08:31
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2013-11-22, 01:24
- Peer Review: bad science -
David Turell,
2013-10-20, 01:08
- The future of science publishing -
George Jelliss,
2013-10-12, 00:08
- Peer Review: another sting works -
David Turell,
2013-10-04, 15:46
- Peer Review: another opinion -
David Turell,
2013-06-25, 15:33
- Peer Review: another mess -
David Turell,
2013-05-30, 15:19
- Peer Review: psycology studies mostly wrong -
David Turell,
2015-09-01, 14:23
- Peer Review: psycology studies mostly wrong -
David Turell,
2015-09-23, 05:28
- Peer Review: more bad press -
David Turell,
2015-11-04, 00:40
- Peer Review: more bad press -
David Turell,
2018-12-02, 21:50
- Peer Review: more bad press - dhw, 2018-12-03, 14:35
- Peer Review: predatory journals -
David Turell,
2019-03-11, 00:37
- Peer Review: predatory journals - dhw, 2019-03-11, 11:15
- Peer Review: more bad press -
David Turell,
2018-12-02, 21:50
- Peer Review: more bad press -
David Turell,
2015-11-04, 00:40
- Peer Review: psycology studies mostly wrong -
David Turell,
2015-09-23, 05:28
- Peer Review: another mess -
David Turell,
2013-02-26, 14:42