DailyDirt: Mistakes In Science Publishing

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It’s amazing some of the stuff that gets published in peer-reviewed scientific journals these days. For example, recently there was a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal in which the images appeared to be photoshopped. The photoshopping was so badly done that it was obvious upon looking at the images that they were doctored. The paper was withdrawn after this was discovered, but why didn’t the journal editors catch this before it was published? Here are some other examples of questionable things that have made their way into journals.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Mistakes In Science Publishing”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Yes, blatant BS in scientific papers is very disturbing, and needs to be addressed, however I am a bit skeptical of the motivations behind and possible encouragement of these bad submittals. Mistakes happen, but these seem a bit over the top.

I’m sure stories like this will be used as “evidence” in many misguided attempts to discredit scientific research spanning decades which has endured multitudes of reviews over the years.

It is simple to point at one example and pretend it represents all … hoping your viewers are gullible or at least subject to confirmation bias.

These submittals found to contain blatant errors or fabrications represent what percentage of all submittals? This would be an interesting tidbit to add in the story. Also of interest is the origin of these horrible papers, is there any commonality amongst them? Could it be that in the hurry for patent rights upon BS claims, there might be some BS data? Nah, that would never happen.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: check the 3rd bullet point link


These submittals found to contain blatant errors or fabrications represent what percentage of all submittals?

so in 2011, it was a few hundred papers retracted per years, with tens of thousands of papers submitted weekly… that’s a pretty small fraction.

Nick (profile) says:

Huh, you remember those websites in popularity a while back that would run a bot against you in a chat program, and it was supposed to pretend it was good enough to hold up a conversation? (Do you like ice cream? *SUBJECT ICE CREAM. QUERY PERSONAL LIKE. REPLY AFFIRM/NEG RANDOM YES/NO* Why yes, I do like ICE CREAM).

That second peer article sounds like someone’s attempt to make an AI that would pump out a series of loosely connected sentences that talk without really talking, and see if they can get it past overwhelmed peer-review journalist interns. He did, and is now trying to keep up the ruse as long as he can before he has to break down, laugh, and admit it was just another Sokal affair.

Anonymous Coward says:

Human condition

No matter what people do, be it write blogs, work for NSA, work for the Government, or the police, or Techdirt, or the military, or in scientific research.

People will cheat, lie, steal, break the law, break the rules, make things up, CENSOR, commit crimes and do other sundry nasty things

It’s what people do !!!

Anonymous Coward says:

re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results

At a glance, I agree. I’ve no interest in spending more time on the article in question, but for what it’s worth, most number-crunching scientists are not qualified to assess the merits of an article in Qualitative Inquiry.

It’s an academic variation on “you’re a bad person for liking things I don’t like.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results

Unlike you, I don’t assume that all scientists are hung up on trying to be physicists or on playing statistical games. Nor do I assume that no researcher who uses qualitative methods can ever be considered a scientist.


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results

“Unlike you, I don’t assume”

But there you did.

“trying to be physicists or on playing statistical games”

They are not physicists? Why?
Do you understand how math is used to model the physical world?

Not all statistics are used for BS, are you familiar with Nate Silver?

I did not say anything about qualitative methods, I asked about your flippant dismissal of math.

You seem rather defensive, I guess there is a reason for that, but I really do not care.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...