Peer Review: more bad press (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 02, 2018, 21:50 (2184 days ago) @ David Turell

Two new articles on how bad it is:

https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2018/11/26/junk_science_has_become_a_profitab...

"Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Smart editors. Peer review. Competition from other labs. But when we see that university research claims – published in the crème de la crème of scientific journals, no less -- are so often wrong, there must be systematic problems. One of them is outright fraud – “advocacy research” that has methodological flaws or intentionally misinterprets the results.

"Another is the abject failure of peer review, which is especially prevalent at “social science” journals. The tale of three scholars who tested the integrity of journals’ peer review is revealing. They wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public on [October 2nd], seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

***

"This situation creates a self-serving, self-aggrandizing process. Researchers have been thriving by churning out this junk science since at least the early 1990s, and as most of the work is government funded, it’s ripping off taxpayers as well as misleading them. It’s a kind of business model in which the dishonest researchers win, and you lose: You lose on the initial cost of the research, the flawed policy implications, and the opportunity costs.

"Because editors and peer-reviewers of research articles have failed to end widespread statistical malpractice, it will fall to government funding agencies – or their appropriators, the Congress -- to cut off support for studies with flawed design; and to universities, which must stop rewarding the publication of bad research. Only last month a tenured professor at Cornell University was forced to resign for data dredging and HARKing, but to truly turn the tide, we will need pressure from many directions.

'And the same stuff in another article:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38793/junk-science-everywhere-and-media-eat-it-ashe-schow

"The two say publishing articles in “predatory journals,” which publish just about anything for the right price, also helps spread junk science.

"Science “journalists” are a huge part of the problem. If the talking points make for a good headline, like Young and Miller’s example about coffee, then the “research” will get written up, no questions asked.

"Young and Miller ultimately ask what can be done to save science, and suggest the solution might fall on government funding agencies “to cut off support for studies with flawed design; and to universities, which must stop rewarding the publication of bad research.” But since so many studies these days just confirm preconceived notions, it seems unlikely that partisans at federal agencies or congressional appropriators will stop giving funds."

Comment: All science professors live on grant monies. Governments love to pass out the money because it looks good to the voting public. The taxpayers are the goats who are made to support this racket, and most don't know it. I can't tell you how many ' new' articles I see that simply repeat what we knew 40+ years ago as physicians.