Yet another
incident demonstrating why it is so amusing when people argue that religion is
false and the supernatural does not exist because science:
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research
papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This
isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from
seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.
It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.
But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review.
Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,” said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they aren’t always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: “When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time,” Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so “this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.”
It’s possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work.
But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn’t aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who’s in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review.
Fake peer reviewers often “know what a review looks like and know enough to make it look plausible,” said Elizabeth Wager, editor of the journal Research Integrity & Peer Review. But they aren’t always good at faking less obvious quirks of academia: “When a lot of the fake peer reviews first came up, one of the reasons the editors spotted them was that the reviewers responded on time,” Wager told Ars. Reviewers almost always have to be chased, so “this was the red flag. And in a few cases, both the reviews would pop up within a few minutes of each other.”
All of the arguments about the presumed reliability of
science are ridiculous and easily shown to be false. Science is no more
"self-correcting" than accounting. Peer review is more commonly known
as "proofreading" by the rest of the publishing industry and is not
even theoretically a means of ensuring accuracy or correctness. And scientists
are observably less trustworthy than nearly anyone except lawyers, politicians,
and used car salesmen; at least prostitutes are honest about their pursuit of
"grants" and "funding".
These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professsional, credentialed scientists. And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".
These days, the scientific process is mainly honored in the breach by professsional, credentialed scientists. And we have a word for testable, reliable science. That word is "engineering".
