Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash (vice.com)

Tuesday a Canadian journalist described his newest victory in his war on fake-science journals. An anonymous reader writes: In 2014, journalist Tom Spears intentionally wrote "the world's worst science research paper...a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble" -- then got it accepted by eight different journals. ("I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology...and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars...") He did it to expose journals which follow the publish-for-a-fee model, "a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate."

But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they're "on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, "I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal -- of ethics. Something about that attracted me... one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them."
He's now publicizing the fact that this formerly-respectable journal is currently featuring his submission, which was "mostly plagiarized from Aristotle, with every fourth or fifth word changed so that anti-plagiarism software won't catch it. But the result is meaningless. Some sentences don't have verbs..."

Comments

You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I meant climate change.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human being do not affect climate? Really? Please cite it - I'd like to read it. Oh... you DON'T have any published work on climate? Um... well... maybe you can go back to school and learn some math and such and then come back when you're properly prepared.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why call it global warming when it is in fact a Global Genocide, an self inflicted extinction event.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[BlueStrat]

Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human being do not affect climate?

Still waiting for published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate.

And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer /. submissions on the front page:

Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash https://science.slashdot.org/s...

Oh, snap!

Strat

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Reproducible? I guess you don't realise how many fields cannot reproduce theories due to there not being an Earth 2 to use as a control. Handy hint, stay away from astrophysics too, idiot.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[ClickOnThis]

And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer /. submissions on the front page:

Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash

You fail to recognize the crucial word in the headline:

Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash

Also, if you bothered to read the articles, you would see that these were formerly-respectable journals that were bought up and exploited by a company that does either perfunctory or nonexistent peer-review, then turns around and agrees to publish the author's paper, provided they pay up of course. Almost all journals charge authors to publish their papers. But these journals are in it for the money, not the science.

This story has nothing to do with the failure of peer-review. It's exposes the failure caused by a lack of it.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you would still be waiting for "published proof," by the sounds of it you've never read a book in your miserable fucking life. Too hard to jack off and hold a novel at the same time or something, you don't have the brainpower to multitask?

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Altrag]

So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?

That seems a bit counter-productive.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

OKay.

Let's begin with some real science, and a major issue: solar input

Rind, D.H., Lean, J.L., Jonas, J. 2014. The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations. Journal of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Bodas-Salcedo A, Williams K, Yokohata T, et al. 2014. Origins of the Solar Radiation Biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 Models. Journal Of Climate Vol. 27(3)

Solanki, S., Krivova, N., Haigh, J.D. 2013. Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol. 51(1)

Scafetta, N. 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Jurnal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestri al Physics Vol. 80

Dima, M. and Lohman, G. 2009. Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible combined solar-thermohal ine circulation origin for the ~1,500 year cycle. Climate Dynamics Vol. 32(2/3)

Krivova, N., S.K. Solanki, 2004: Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850. Advances in Space Research, Vol. 34(2)

Lean, J., D. Rind, 1998: Climate Forcing by Changing Solar Radiation. Journal of Climate Vol. 11(12)

Rind, D., D. Shindell, J. Perlwitz, J. Lerner, P. Lonergan, 2004: The Relative Importance of Solar and Anthropogenic Forcing of Climate Change Between the Maunder Minimum and the Present. Journal of Climate, Vol. 17(5)

Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun? Earth & Planetary Science Letters. Vol. 248(1/2)

Stott, Peter A.; Jones, Gareth S.; Mitchell, John F.B. 2003. Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? . Journal of Climate. Vol. 16(24)

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only self inflicted to those who hyperventilate and burst a brain vessel whenever someone criticizes AGW.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[lgw]

Sea levels rising a bit would be expensive, no doubt, since we tend to build cities on the coast. Maybe it's cheaper to emit less carbon? Maybe it's not. But either way, hyperbole like "destroy the planet" is political propaganda, not science, and obviously so - speaking of counter-productive.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[LynnwoodRooster]

For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof.

In the real world, we have to frequently make very difficult, big decisions before there is absolute proof of what the consequences are. That doesn't mean such decisions are uninformed though.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[LynnwoodRooster]

I absolutely LOVE the fact you got modded to -1! A challenge for "published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate." You provide a list that is at least as authoritative as the other side, and get slammed. A thoughtful person would take it as proof that everything is NOT known, there is still some variability, and conclude at best "well, there is probably a good chance that climate change is caused by humans" or at worst "there is a good chance that climate change is not caused by humans". Declaring one way or another cannot be realistically done.

But the pro-AGW side treat it more as a religion than science - and modded your list into oblivion...

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. Every single paper I listed shows human beings to be the primary driver of currently observed temperatures.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human beings DO affect the climate? Really? Please cite it - I'd like to read it. Oh... you DON'T have any published work on climate? Um... well... maybe you can go back to school and learn some math and such and then come back when you're properly prepared.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[thegarbz]

The list was modded down not because it wasn't published proof, but rather because it was nothing more than a set of models that are included in subsequent climate reviews to be corrected for later.

It's like asking someone to publish a list of cakes and getting answers like "flour, eggs, water, coco powder".

Some of those articles I've seen before ... cited in studies showing the affects of AGW, because scientists actually know how to do their jobs despite what a bunch of Slash-f-wits think.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Where is physics? When the Sun irradiates the Earth surface in one and a half hour with as much energy as the entire humanity generates in one year, do you seriously think this all this Sun's heat is misteriously lost without a trace, so that only human 0.01% output is heating the Earth atmosphere? The AGW has long be ridiculed by leading physicists because climate models are based on primitive radiation and reflection formulas, totally ignoring thermodynamic convection laws in biosphere. For instance, there are ongoing 5 Petawats of energy flux across the Earth hemispheres per year only due to oceans flows and atmospheric circulation. For climatologists mathematics and physics obviously was not their area of good knowledge. Entire humanity generates just 15 Terawats energy per year, while the Sun heats the Earth with 89,000 Terawats per year. Of cource AGW is a big hoax, likely to trade Billions of CO2 quotas by defrauding tax payers by fear mongering and seeding false guilt. Sadly humanity will not have technologies matching the Sun's heating power on Earth for at least the next ten thousand years, so that we can all relax and stop worring about the imagined problem that does not exist.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[BlueStrat]

So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?

That seems a bit counter-productive.

Where did I say proof requires "destroying the planet"? Hyperbolic-strawman, much? Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?

A poster up-thread already destroyed your strawman.

https://slashdot.org/comments....

For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...

Still waiting for those releases of data/processes/methods & tools...you know, like *real* scientists do, as opposed to climate-alarmist propaganda shills posing as scientists and their political hangers-on.

Strat

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's a rather stupid assertion. Imagine - all those climatologists who are completely ignorant of physics. So if "The AGW has long be ridiculed by leading physicists", where is their research? Where are their papers? Oh, that's right - they don't fucking exist.

Read some fucking science before sounding off. The first person to ever consider the influence of CO2 on temperature was Fourier in the early 1800s. Arrhenius built on his work, examining CO2 produced by human activities, in the late 1800s. So this hoax was started all the way back then??

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[hackwrench]

so that only human 0.01% output is heating the Earth atmosphere?

That's not the scientific argument at all.

When the Sun irradiates the Earth surface in one and a half hour with as much energy as the entire humanity generates in one year

Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[TechyImmigrant]

so that only human 0.01% output is heating the Earth atmosphere?

That's not the scientific argument at all.

When the Sun irradiates the Earth surface in one and a half hour with as much energy as the entire humanity generates in one year

Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.

Everyone knows it's colder inside a greenhouse right?

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[hackwrench]

Don't know if you are serious or sarcastic, but I've been in a few greenhouses. It's been awhile, but as I remember they were warmer than the outside.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[geekmux]

So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?

That seems a bit counter-productive.

Exactly. In the end, the only thing that's going to be more annoying than those trying to dismiss the end of times with this incessant prove-it-is-me attitude is listening to those same critics say "Oh, I guess you were right after all."

The most valuable word in the world is Why.

The most expensive statement in the known universe is I told you so.

No matter who or what is to blame for negative impacts to our climate, the species reliant upon said climate in order to survive should probably give a shit at least a little bit instead of exhausting all efforts to ignore the fuck out of it.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[TechyImmigrant]

Yes, it is indeed warmer. I was not being serious in the sense of meaning it was actually colder. I was being serious in the sense of highlighting the absurdity of denying the greenhouse effect when it can be demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is indeed warmer. I was not being serious in the sense of meaning it was actually colder. I was being serious in the sense of highlighting the absurdity of denying the greenhouse effect when it can be demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.

So what about water vapor? It's greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude greater than CO2 and there's a *lot* of it. The positive or negative temperature changes from higher or lower CO2 concentrations are a fart in a hurricane in relation to H2O. Want to make it colder? Reduce H2O evaporation. The only valid reason to target CO2 as the main driver of climate change is to increase the scope and depth of government control of society, the economy, and individual freedom while enriching themselves and their cronies. It makes no sense in relation to achieving the goals they state publicly in the most efficacious and economical way.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[TechyImmigrant]

It's often humid in a greenhouse. The analogy that keeps giving.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[nedlohs]

So are you claiming that human CO2 emissions somehow formed a glass sphere around the earth? If not then how does stepping into a greenhouse demonstrate anything?

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[TechyImmigrant]

That's a strange thing to think. Why would you think that? Type less, think more.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[LynnwoodRooster]

Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.

Jones refused to release his data and his algorithms meaning it was impossible to vet and review his claims. Of course, Michael Mann (he who wanted to hide the decline in his own data) now states that we don't really need data because we can just see what happens. Data is irrelevant, anecdotal evidence is all that one needs.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[BlueStrat]

In the real world, we have to frequently make very difficult, big decisions before there is absolute proof of what the consequences are. That doesn't mean such decisions are uninformed though.

And also in the real world, raising energy prices (a major tool of AGW proponents to control CO2) costs human lives. How many poor/old/disabled peoples' lives is it worth to you? Would you still feel that countering CO2 in this manner was worthwhile if you had to personally shoot the poor/old/disabled people yourself instead of anonymously causing them to freeze/starve to death out of your sight?

Strat

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was a conspiracy and still is. Now the warmest side was nasty and so on. And the deniers were shills. But we did get a lot of research. And I guess we can agree that the oceans are dying.

But computer models suck and so do biologists unless they met criteria that is really hard to meet. I guess you know that the funding source gets the results it wants and so we have dueling models and great angst and hate.. and here is the point: Sometimes the deceitful and conflicting models turn out to be saying the same thing. Grin.

No thanks to you.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

My greenhouse has no glass in it, so I don't know why you're implying all greenhouses turn into glass...

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[nedlohs]

You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.

A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[nedlohs]

Yes there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of public policy decisions involve choosing between two options where both involve people dying. But your example isn't a good one since a lot of places have discount or free utility programs for low income and disable people. Regardless of whatever the price of energy prices are, if they are nonzero, there is going to be someone hurt by being unable to afford it and that needs to be addressed directly instead of just being letting them serve as a political counterpoint.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[TechyImmigrant]

>You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.

It is. Same principle.

>A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?

A greenhouse is warmer because sunlight and to a lesser extent UV passes through the glass easily, hits matter, gets absorbed, gets re-emitted at a lower IR frequency and the IR bounces off the glass and so the energy is retained, just as it bounces off the atmosphere with a higher rate the higher the presence of certain chemicals now known collectively as 'greenhouse gasses'.

None of this is controversial. It's textbook stuff. Why are you arguing? Didn't you study how a greenhouse works in schools? I certainly did.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of public policy decisions involve choosing between two options where both involve people dying. But your example isn't a good one since a lot of places have discount or free utility programs for low income and disable people. Regardless of whatever the price of energy prices are, if they are nonzero, there is going to be someone hurt by being unable to afford it and that needs to be addressed directly instead of just being letting them serve as a political counterpoint.

Yeah, you tell yourself whatever you need to so you can sleep through the night you fucking coward. "Oh, most of the deplorables would likely die anyways, and if for some reason they slip through the cracks it's no big loss as people die all the time." Fuck you and your AGW religion, DIAF you arrogant sociopathic murdering coward!

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the most likely people to die from weather disasters are the poor and disabled. Both ways forward have significant impacts on the "deplorable." But pretending that the other side is too inhumane to care for other people is purely a BS propaganda technique, which is only good if you have absolutely nothing to add to the actual conversation.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[ebvwfbw]

Just use the published stuff. Here, a journalist has put it all together for even the stupid people on slashdot - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu... . Listen to it, it's really worth your time.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Anonymous Coward]

there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.

It should be obvious, yet some people keep arguing that one such material can't possibly work because it is not glass...

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Maritz]

He probably saw some snow somewhere. That's about all it takes to convince the slashdot crowd that it's an evil hippy/chinese conspiracy.

Re: You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Maritz]

Not really, we just react with the same emotion elicited by the creationist crowd. Utter contempt. The "skepticism" of AGW is intellectual cowardice at its finest.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Maritz]

lol "oh snap". Hey, if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Oh snap! Keep burying your head, climate deniers. Every year that temperature rises and glaciers retreat highlights your inane cowardice and failure to face reality.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Altrag]

Hyperbolic-strawman, much?

Yes, exactly what you asked for:

verifiable, reproducible, proof

The only way you can reproduce "this will destroy the planet," is by destroying a planet. Which isn't really a possible thing to do.

Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?

That's exactly my point -- there is no way to "prove" anything here, for either side. All we can do is gather evidence and form theories and models based on that evidence. And pretty much all evidence so far points to climate change being both a thing and a problem.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[david_thornley]

Still waiting for those releases of data/processes/methods & tools...you know, like *real* scientists do, as opposed to climate-alarmist propaganda shills posing as scientists and their political hangers-on.

When do you think the practice of real science started? I've read innumerable papers in which there was no obvious way to get the raw data, and no guarantees that it still existed.

Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!??

[Altrag]

It may not be "released" in the sense of sitting in a public archive somewhere, but it usually only takes a quick email to the researcher to get more information. Most university researchers have their email listed somewhere on the faculty pages (and often listed on the paper itself these days, for just this reason.) Corporate scientists might be a little harder to connect to since companies only like to talk about their C-level employees but its not like its impossible there either. If nothing else, pick up the phone and ask for them by name.

They may not release full data (IP issues and all) unless you're another known scientist in the field, but you'll almost certainly be able to get clarifications on anything that you found non-obvious in their papers.. this is their life's work and they're happy to talk about it night and day if you let them! Most are, anyway. I mean they're still people and you'll run into the odd grumpy asshat but generally speaking they love it when someone's interested in their work.

So the proper order to follow up on something that interests you is: Press release -> actual paper -> open a discussion with the researchers.

Most people stop after the first step. Of course press releases are entirely lacking in data since they're intended for laymen.

Many that remain stop after the second step. But that third step still exists for the few people who care to actually delve into the details before they start running their mouths.

Johnny?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rosanne? Be specific dammit!

Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see peer reviewed journals go away. They're a relic of the past, for many reasons.

1) The review process isn't transparent. It's too easy for authors to submit fake reviewers or for reviewers to not disclose conflicts of interest.

2) Reviewers generally don't have access to data and tools to actually verify the quality of the research. It's too easy for fabricated results to get published.

3) Many conference presentations are recorded. There's much less need for publications when it's easy to go online and watch a recording of a conference presentation.

4) Is it better to have a paper about a data set or the actual data set? Is it better to have a paper about a research tool or the actual research tool? Judge researchers based on the data and analysis tools they release, which is far more of a contribution to science.

5) Peer review gives researchers incentives to withhold data that might be contradictory to a hypothesis or that they can't explain yet, because it's often more important to get more publications than to do good research. This is as much a fault of the system as it is a criticism of researchers.

Eliminating peer reviewed journals is one of the best things that could happen to science. It would also end a lot of abuses by the journals.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The review process isn't transparent. It's too easy for authors to submit fake reviewers or for reviewers to not disclose conflicts of interest.

This is where a good journal has an editor that works their ass off trying their best to catch conflicts of interests and lazy reviewers. Most decent journals have a process for appealing bad reviews, and in my experience, the editors tend to pretty quickly ignore reviews that are lazy or conflict with the paper. The results aren't perfect, but most of the time work pretty well.

2) Reviewers generally don't have access to data and tools to actually verify the quality of the research. It's too easy for fabricated results to get published.

This depends on the journal, as more are now including data sets. I've had reviewers redo calculations in papers I've published, although the amount of effort to do so varies widely. The fact it is peer reviewed doesn't make it any easier to get fabricated results published though, because it is not like there is less fake stuff in non-reviewed journals, ArXiV, or any other publishing medium.

Additionally, the point of peer review isn't to catch liars, as even with full data sets and analysis tools, you won't be able to confirm everything was done exactly as said to collect that data. It is a trust but verify type situation, where ultimately if anyone cares about the results, more measurements will get taken by different people. The reviewers are there to check that the material is relevant to the journal, comprehensive enough, and valid (valid, as checking soundness is rather limited)

3) Many conference presentations are recorded. There's much less need for publications when it's easy to go online and watch a recording of a conference presentation.

Conference presentations are nearly useless compared to a detailed paper, except for the simplest of research. A presentation is simply not going to get across enough information, so it seems odd you would think it is a replacement for a paper at the same time complaining of papers not giving enough info to reproduce the analysis. The whole point of going to a presentation is to either get a polished overview of the work, which just amounts an flashy version of an abstract, or to actually interact with the presenter and ask questions. A recording isn't going to let you interact.

4) Is it better to have a paper about a data set or the actual data set? Is it better to have a paper about a research tool or the actual research tool? Judge researchers based on the data and analysis tools they release, which is far more of a contribution to science.

It isn't an either or situation. Data by itself is useless without a lot of info explaining exactly how that data was collected and what it represents. Analysis tools aren't useful without knowing what was actually being attempted. You need both the wrie-up and the data. This is orthogonal to whether it is peer reviewed or not.

5) Peer review gives researchers incentives to withhold data that might be contradictory to a hypothesis or that they can't explain yet, because it's often more important to get more publications than to do good research. This is as much a fault of the system as it is a criticism of researchers.

Researchers have a lot of incentive to not mention conflicting ideas and data regardless of media. Conference presentations tend to skip over a lot of difficulties in research to make a smoother narrative. PR pieces tend to make things look a lot better than they are. Even talking to researchers in person, you sometimes have to ask very pointed questions to find out problems. It isn't just a matter of being being dishonest, as it is easy to convince oneself that outliers are bad for other reasons. Again, this is rather orthogonal to peer review, and is true of pretty much any medium.

Doing good science is very difficult.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[xtsigs]

4) Is it better to have a paper about a data set or the actual data set? Is it better to have a paper about a research tool or the actual research tool? Judge researchers based on the data and analysis tools they release, which is far more of a contribution to science.

Occasionally, the other four points you make do happen, but this solution doesn't work any better than peer reviewing because there would still be, in your own words, "incentives to withhold data that might be contradictory to a hypothesis or that they can't explain yet." If recorded conferences (your point #3) were the standard instead of papers, the same corruptions in the process would (and do) plague the conferences.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Rockoon]

Most decent journals have a process for appealing bad reviews, and in my experience, the editors tend to pretty quickly ignore reviews that are lazy or conflict with the paper.

You say this like its a good thing. The only reviews that get appealed would be the ones that stop a paper from being published. No author is going to appeal a review that gets his/her paper published.

The end result can only be more fake papers being published, not less.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Applehu Akbar]

No, peer review is the part of the system we need to keep. Replace the journals with websites, and invite peer review on the site. Access problem solved, journal monopoly broken.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Anonymous Coward]

The end result can only be more fake papers being published, not less.

More papers than not doing peer review? And you ignore the previous sentence:

This is where a good journal has an editor that works their ass off trying their best to catch conflicts of interests and lazy reviewers.

The keywords were that a decent journal has an appeal process, and that a good has a vigilant, busy editor. I've had a review bounced back by an editor because I had long comments for all but one section of a paper, and they wanted to confirm I didn't just skim over that section. This is where it comes down to reputation, and like any other process, will depend on how much effort is put in.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[serviscope_minor]

No, peer review is the part of the system we need to keep. Replace the journals with websites, and invite peer review on the site. Access problem solved, journal monopoly broken.

You've literally described many journals, like PLoS One for example. It's a website, not a printed journal. Peer review is all done online. Invitations are sent out by email, though not via the web, bye the review is usually done via some system on the website.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Applehu Akbar]

Yes, things are moving that way, but there are still too many print journals still around that operate as high-priced monopolies. It's a matter of changing the culture one journal at a time.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[syntotic]

Oh, you mean all editors were eliminated and it is only the printing press people who take it all and ASSUME they will ONLY get serious and up to level papers publishable as-is without further review? Can happen...

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Applehu Akbar]

There is no need to 'eliminate' editors. Moving journals to websites will take away that primary argument in favor of money-grubbing monopoly, "It costs a lot to distribute small numbers of print issues with charts and illustrations to scattered college libraries..." This is easy to do on websites, and the savings will enable hiring some perfectly good editors from that putatively vast pool of underemployed academics out there.

Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals

[Anonymous Coward]

That hasn't been the argument, primary or otherwise, in a long time. Most university libraries don't get print versions of journals any more, and the few that do more than pay enough for the printing costs. The only researchers that I know still using print versions are those digging through defunct journals from decades ago. The vast majority of research use of journals is via website, just like you desire, with print amounting to a few institutes for archival purposes.

Definition of a scientist...

[HanzoSpam]

...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[jlowery]

Deep.

Re: Definition of a scientist...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take credit for that.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You have been indoctrinated to accept medicine as science. It is not.

Physics and chemistry are science.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

That's the most disgusting anti-intellectualist bullshit that I read today.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[Phillip2]

Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[denzacar]

Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.

Trump 2016?

I.e. Any drivel anyone manages to regurgitate is just as good as fact. Or better.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. It's amazing what the two digit IQs believe.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[MillionthMonkey]

...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

We have got to decide this day whether we prefer for the future to deprive frantic and profligate scientists of the protection of wicked and unprincipled citizens, or even to arm them with the cloak of scientific illiteracy due to the mortal God in which they hold only approximate esteem, and the invisible hand in which they hold none. For if that pest and conflagration of the public succeeds in defending its own mischievous and unprofitable community by appeals to divine stupidity, when they cannot maintain it by any considerations of objective reality, then we must seek for other ceremonies, for other sources of unquestionable truth, or for other interpreters of the requirements of politically unbiased facts. But if those things which are done by the madness of wicked men in the republic at a time when it was oppressed by one party, deserted by another, and betrayed by a third, are abetted by their data and its statistical analysis with no return on investment, then we shall have cause rightly and deservedly to praise the wisdom of ourselves in selecting the most honorable men of the state for the executive with which to purge their undue influence.

Re:Definition of a scientist...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.

That's the most disgusting anti-intellectualist bullshit that I read today.

No more disgusting than those vehemently denying the truth, or worse, hiding it for profit.

Awesome Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this guy keeps up exposing these fraudsters.

Climate science in particular

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it.

Tenure and Promotion

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll keep being around as long as there is a standard tenure and promotion system at most colleges & universities. This last year, one of the more senior CS professor at my college got promoted to full professor, mostly due to the P&T Committee's noting his multiple publications (all from pay-to-publish journals). The committee, not being scientists, had no clue these were not legit journals. As long as people can scam the system, these aren't going anywhere.

Re:Tenure and Promotion

[Anonymous Coward]

This last year, one of the more senior CS professor at my college got promoted to full professor, mostly due to the P&T Committee's noting his multiple publications (all from pay-to-publish journals), The committee, not being scientists, had no clue these were not legit journals.

What school does this? The ones I've worked at all spent quite a time digging down into the actual papers and citations. The ability of the prof to get grants was also a big part of the tenure pay raise discussions, but grant reviewers tend to be even closer to the researcher's field and also look into details of papers. The legitimacy of the journal doesn't really come up (although big named ones might factor into PR potential... but if you don't know the field that would be moot).

If your school just allows the committee count number of publications, it can't really blame anyone else for their system sucking.

"Journals"

[Anonymous Coward]

Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.

Say...: The Analyst, Analytica Chimica Acta, Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry, Polyhedron, Acta Physica Polonica, Molecular Physics, Applied Optics...

The problem here is what the media defines as "science". They don't really know what they are talking about.

Like any scientist would take something called the "Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics" seriously. Ha! You can tell by the name it is bogus and has nothing to do with real science.

Re:"Journals"

[Anonymous Coward]

This. There are a massive number of journals that exist just to make money and pad researcher's CV. I get more than a dozen spam emails a week from these journals, plus another dozen plus spam emails from conferences that will accept anything. Besides journals that exist to make money, there are others created by psuedoscientists to publish their own papers that kept getting rejected elsewhere.

Not all journals are equal, and you have to spend a bit of time to learn what is actually used in a field (the horror... it takes a time investment to understand something). The fake ones often try to pick rather formal sounding names, or names that are mishmashes of other well known journal names, making it confusing on purpose.

I have to wonder how often these fake journals amount to anything within academia? How often are they cited outside of themselves? Having been on both sides of the interview process, I've seen that papers on a CV get actually read, so BS and pointless work gets called out. The bigger danger seems to be when people not familiar with a field cite it, or it gets used in a non-science news piece.

hoho

[fireylord]

You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right? Or are you just a shill?

Re: hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

If peer review of publications actually involved independent researchers attempting to replicate results, I'd support it. However, that's not how the process actually works. Instead, it involves submitting a manuscript to a journal and suggesting reviewers. The manuscript is assigned to an editor, who then selects reviewers and sends the manuscript out for review. The reviewers generally don't try to replicate the results. They just comment on the manuscript and any supplemental materials that have been supplied for the reviewers. Releasing data sets and analysis tools publicly would make it far easier for independent researchers to replicate results than peer reviewed journals do. My proposal to eliminate peer reviewed journals and replacing them with a more transparent process is far more in the spirit of peer review than the current system. Release the data and analysis tools, then have actual peer review instead of trusting an opaque process. As for your ad hominem allegation of me being a shill, that does nothing to support your position.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

You realise the Citizen article is titled: "Owner of Canadian medical journals publishes fake research for cash"?
Contrast that with Vice's clickbait title: "Fake Science News Is Just As Bad As Fake News"
and Slashdot's clickbait title: "Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash".

Isn't it interesting how the story changed?

The difference between real and yellow journalism should be clear here. This is a plainly obvious attempt at propaganda to discredit science by implying that medicine is science.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer reviews were never designed to allowed "others to replicate" ... Because in many cases to replicate the experiment is a multi-year, multi-million dollar venture. Peer reviews were designed to allow others to verify that the correct process was taken. No Averaging of Average, proper control and test groups are explained in the correct sizes to be mathematically valid.

Re:hoho

[ShanghaiBill]

You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?

No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.

Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between real and yellow journalism should be clear here. This is a plainly obvious attempt at propaganda to discredit science by implying that medicine is science.

LOLOLOL, as I scientist I agree, medicine is just full of people marginally better than witch doctors!

Re:hoho

[Hognoxious]

You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research

If it was peer *replication* they wouldn't call it peer *review* would they, idiot?

Re:hoho

[lgw]

do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?

You are entirely wrong. That's simply not what "peer review" means. That's a step after peer review, which BTW almost never happens. Peer review is simply a methodology check: did this research use accepted best practices.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I would put shamanism ahead of modern medicine in terms of useful knowledge.

Re: hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on the field a little. We work in material science and about 2-3 times a year we will attempt to replicate work as part of our peer review of other's work. We have all the kit and can usually run a couple of experiments in a few days and have them analysed in house. Again, it depends on the field and the more general approach is as the parent poster outlines.

Re:hoho

[Rockoon]

You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?

You literally just made that up, knew you were doing it, but didnt give a fuck that you were completely full of shit.

You also thought everyone else was completely stupid? For fuck sakes.... never post again.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?

No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.

Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.

And, to the rest of us, that makes you out of touch with reality. The problem with academic research is that for a bunch of people who pretend to have a critical eye and look at the big problems, y'all never seem to really use a critical eye or really tackle the really hard problems (such as translating research into practice). The lack of replication is a big hole in the scientific research process in this country.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Coward]

The lack of replication is a big hole in the scientific research process in this country.

Which country, because that is how peer review works just about everywhere. It is a process to vet the description of the research and the relevance to the journal. Replication usually comes later, and is still pretty common in a lot of fields. You might not see researchers doing the exact same experiment, but there are a lot of experiments expanding parameter spaces or at higher precision. Those experiments quickly find any disagreements.

really tackle the really hard problems (such as translating research into practice).

Funny, considering far more scientists get hired by industry than academia, and quite a few academics hired out from academia because the money is much better. I quit my job at a university, now get paid twice as much to deal with what you call the really hard problem... that is not really any different than the work done at the university except less info gets published. Quite a few academics also get paid as consultants to help implementations too.

Re:hoho

[serviscope_minor]

No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.

As someone who's also peer reviewed a bunch of papers: yeah. I've heard some chemists replicate some synthesis papers, though I've never met one. Just a rumour really. I guess the hard bit is figuring it out, not actually doing it. But for my field, it's the same as yours: it would take a very long time to replicate the work, even if I was (a) interested and (b) had the people to do it.

Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.

Absolutely. It also catches utterly pointless research too! But mostly I think I reject papers for reasons of having meaningless experiments. If someone had sensible sounding experiments and flat-out faked the numbers, there's no easy way to tell.

Re:hoho

[RuffMasterD]

You clearly don't work in science. I agree there is a problem with the way science is funded, but it's not the scientists fault. To get paid, you need to apply for funding. To get funding, you need to convince a funding agency that you have a great idea, and the skills to do the work. I have rarely seen anyone receive funding to reproduce someone else’s work. There is a limited amount of money to go around, so someone else will propose researching a novel idea, and the funding agency finds that more appealing than reproducing old work. There is simply no funding left to reproduce old work. You are most welcome to do that for fee. But I have bills to pay.

Re:hoho

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

You're free to use that instead, then. Just don't cry when your leukemia doesn't respond. Or when you catch any vaccine-preventable disease. And don't use any modern surgical technique or anesthesia either.

one rather significant flaw

[fireylord]

Using the same dataset if it was published with the article would lead to manipulation of that dataset to meet the already decided upon conclusion. Taking the idea/theory and using an independent dataset is the only way to stop this.
We've seen the results of this before from just about every lobby group with something they are trying to spin into something more positive , for ex Tobacco lobby, NRA, AGW, the list goes on. Marketting droids meet persons with personal agenda. Having no peer reviewed science publishers would be markedly worse. If you had said 'paid peer review publishers' then I would agree.
It's interesting how you turned my question of over your independence into an 'allegation'. You see that little round punctuation mark at the end of my sentence I guess, that denotes a question.
Those of us that are genuine, tend to not hide behind the ac button. Try it some time

Re: one rather significant flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose there's no easy way to force researchers to disclose data sets that, when analyzed, produce results that are difficult to explain. But if there's less emphasis on publications and more emphasis on creating high quality data sets and analysis tools, perhaps there's less incentive to withhold or fabricate data. Academia judges researchers largely based on the quantity of publications and the amount of funding obtained. Part of obtaining funding is based on producing a large quantity of publications. Academia is somewhat blind about the quality of publications and the work being done. In my experience, submitting manuscripts to peer review, I've never been asked for the data necessary to try to replicate my findings. I've hurt my academic career by submitting fewer manuscripts and trying to ensure that my work is of a high quality. However, if I wanted to cheat the system, it would have been quite easy for me to fabricate results and get them published. I've never done such a thing, but my experience with peer review is that it isn't really effective at evaluating the quality of research. I have no interest in publishing shoddy work, but it would have been easy for me to get ahead by doing so.

My field is meteorology; I research weather, and don't really cross over into climate change research. I'm trying to do entrepreneurial work on the side to build a business and get out of academia. I don't think academia rewards the quality of work nearly as much as it rewards quantity. I value my anonymity because academia is ruthless when grant money is involved. Science is hard, and I'm tired of seeing people get ahead by cutting corners.

"Some sentences don't have verbs..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this in my undergrad papers all the time. I didn't know that was the result of plagiarizing Aristotle: I thought they were just stupid undergrads who needed to fail.

Why do these journals still exist?

[RyanFenton]

They are absurd. They exists purely for the purpose of acting as gateways to science, except they're largely privately owned, and often deeply corrupt.

It's not helpful anymore. All the benefits of such a system can be achieved in far better ways in the modern era - peer review doesn't need a publishing system anymore, nor does statistical analysis, replication studies or metastudies.

The closest thing to a remaining benefit would be reference count - but even that's a dubious statistic, since so many journals exist largely to provide networks of references.

I mean, the whole process has always been somewhat corrupt in the past too - but better options can be built, and better standards should be valuable to enough people to be worth replacing these absurd journals.

I agree with the notion that we need networks to separate science from psuedo-science, but making everything crazy expensive is NOT fulfilling that logical need, nor is it reducing fake science reported as real when you get right down to it.

A real modern science network would inform journalists and laypeople about the best science available as much as the current approach. This is desperately needed, but instead, we still have journals dominating the field, to the point where jobs depend more on the journals than the actual science...again, truly absurd.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

They provide a thin veneer of institutional credibility. That's it really.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[serviscope_minor]

You've claimed repeatedly that something better can be done. I used to work in science and published a reasonable number of papers (and have reviewed considerably more). How much journals suck and how to make them better is a really popular pub topic among scientists.

Turns out it's really hard and there are no easy solutions. So, instead of telling us how things ought to be better actually make a suggestion. Otherwise it's just abstract complaining about how things aren't good enough.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[RyanFenton]

Several methods I can think of. First, just leave the printing stage off, let any libraries that find that important just print off their own copies, and remove that excuse for high fees. That's like version 0.01.

After that, you can experiment (which is sort of being done) with proper reputation systems to replace the "we're a big organization with $X, no one else can play" model. Sure - the big organizations would still dominate most of those, and scoring 'points' in such a system would still require money - but that money should hopefully go more towards people doing work, and less towards organization fees, licenses, etc. That would get you to something like version 0.35.

Getting to this point would involve lots of scandals - but proper ones that really should happen. To get further, you'd want replace the flawed "because we're older and got more mentions" system with a proper interactive vetting process, where replications are worth a larger percentage, even if they don't get 'published'. You can start to bring the newer system into the hiring process instead of 'must have published in x or y' process we've got now. That would get you around 0.5.

To get further than that, you'd have to get outside parties interacting with the process better. Imagine a world where not only free access, but journalists would actually use it, because it's mostly as convenient as 'industry sources' info. That, and being able to contact often obscure scientists to ask a question without having to wait for days in administrative limbo as often.

I'm not coming at this from a 'oh, why won't they support my pet topic' perspective - but as someone whose had friends that have had to deal with the system as it has existed, and who is into proper James Randi-style skepticism (not "science skepticism"), who sees flaws in journals and journalists covering topics lead to mass public misunderstandings greater than just a few simple scandals.

Any system is going to have flaws - I just don't see the journals as useful to anything at this point, when expert gatekeeping can be done so much better in other circles.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply having a gatekeeper is not good enough, but you need one that has a track record and that you trust. If you don't do your own diligence in vetting a gatekeeper, then you are ultimately responsible for things that get through the gate.

There are journals that do a rather good job of keeping out junk, catching mistakes, and going after fraud. None of them are perfect. Some of them are much worse than others, and some are outright scams. Treating all journals as the same and hoping nothing bad gets through is the same as hiring a gatekeeper and taking the first warm body you find. No process is going to be perfect at protecting you when you put no effort yourself into it.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[geekmux]

You've claimed repeatedly that something better can be done. I used to work in science and published a reasonable number of papers (and have reviewed considerably more). How much journals suck and how to make them better is a really popular pub topic among scientists.

Turns out it's really hard and there are no easy solutions. So, instead of telling us how things ought to be better actually make a suggestion. Otherwise it's just abstract complaining about how things aren't good enough.

You want a solution? Fine.

The solution we all strive for is actually pretty damn simple. To create it, ensure an organization devoted to publishing truth and fact is well insulated from the greedy corrupt world we live in today, and is backed by those who demand a validated peer-reviewed process as a mandatory step prior to publication.

And yes, the world is greedy and corrupt. You sure as hell don't need another study to prove how greedy and corrupt it is, nor do you need a study done to validate what causes utter bullshit to be published.

And don't give me this shit about having it already. If such an organization existed today, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

And don't give me this shit about having it already. If such an organization existed today, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, this conversation happens because there are journals that don't do things the right way. The existence of bad journals doesn't preclude good journals, as both can and do exist at the same time.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[geekmux]

And don't give me this shit about having it already. If such an organization existed today, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, this conversation happens because there are journals that don't do things the right way. The existence of bad journals doesn't preclude good journals, as both can and do exist at the same time.

Finding good journals today suffers from the same problem that good news now has.

You have to find enough humans who still give a shit about perpetuating truth and facts instead of turning profits perpetuating lies and bullshit.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[serviscope_minor]

Several methods I can think of. First, just leave the printing stage off, let any libraries that find that important just print off their own copies, and remove that excuse for high fees. That's like version 0.01.

All journals are available electronically for less than the paper copies. Professionally edited ones like Nature are always going to to cover the costs of staff. Other than that, many journals are now open access or allow open access papers to be published there. The latter since it's now a requirement by some influential funding bodies.

After that, you can experiment (which is sort of being done) with proper reputation systems to replace the "we're a big organization with $X, no one else can play" model. Sure - the big organizations would still dominate most of those, and scoring 'points' in such a system would still require money - but that money should hopefully go more towards people doing work, and less towards organization fees, licenses, etc. That would get you to something like version 0.35.

What? I don't really see what that's got to do with peer review, so a reputation system for WHAT. And more importantly, how is reputation gained? Without absolute concrete examples, your ideas are less than useless. Just about everyone in science has vague ideas about how to make things better.

Getting to this point would involve lots of scandals - but proper ones that really should happen. To get further, you'd want replace the flawed "because we're older and got more mentions" system with a proper interactive vetting process, where replications are worth a larger percentage, even if they don't get 'published'. You can start to bring the newer system into the hiring process instead of 'must have published in x or y' process we've got now. That would get you around 0.5.

Describe the mechanics of this vetting system. You seem to be confusing the peer review process with citations and both of those with academic hiring. They could all be improved, but what you've said is little more than "make it better using the internet".

To get further than that, you'd have to get outside parties interacting with the process better. Imagine a world where not only free access, but journalists would actually use it, because it's mostly as convenient as 'industry sources' info. That, and being able to contact often obscure scientists to ask a question without having to wait for days in administrative limbo as often.

We have these things called "telephones" and "email" where you can contact someone on the other side of the world almost instantly. You should try them, they're t'riffic. Journals almost always publish contact info and for everything else there's google.

But seriously, WHO. Who should "get" outside parties interacting better. Many papers are available online. For the ones that aren't you can just ask and you'll almost always get a copy. The difficult bit is reading and understanding them which might take 5 years of study.

Any system is going to have flaws - I just don't see the journals as useful to anything at this point, when expert gatekeeping can be done so much better in other circles.

Journals are an imperfect filter. All you've described is a vague notion for a different imperfect filter, but one that's probably even more work than the existing system.

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[serviscope_minor]

You're confusing science journals with journalism it seems. But it's good that you have an angry opinion about a field it appears you are completely unfamiliar with. Go you!

Re:Why do these journals still exist?

[david_thornley]

You know, one theoretical solution to all problems of greed and corruption is to take hypothetical competent humans of known utter honesty and put them in charge. The trick is (a) ensuring that there are such people, and (b) figuring out who they are. Election through the Electoral College seems to not quite work.

While you're figuring out those things, the rest of us will try to improve the real world.

Sokal

[Anonymous Coward]

For those not familiar with it, back in the mid-90s there was the Sokal Hoax

Access court for cited paper skyrocketing

[Anonymous Coward]

I encourage everyone to read the article cited and post a comment as informative as the original article!

Re:Access court for cited paper skyrocketing

[MillionthMonkey]

I encourage everyone to read the article cited and post a comment as informative as the original article!

And, to those in my audience, this beginning of my defense seems to be most appropriate concerning the standing of this man so that I should tweet first to those things which his haters and accusers and dummies in the media have advanced with the general view of disparaging him and for the sake of detracting from his honor and despoiling him of his dignity. His father was cast in his teeth on various accounts, at one time as having been a man of no great respectability himself; at another, he was said to have been treated with but little respect by his son. On the score of dignity, our subject, to those who know him and to the best people among us, is of himself, without speaking, himself able easily to take a very sufficient expression, and without anyone having any occasion to suppress any tweet from him; but as for those to whom he is not equally well known, on account of his great stature, which has now for some time hindered his mixing much with us in the forum bigly, let them think this: that whatever dignity can exist in an individual- and certainly the very greatest may be found in that family- has always been considered, and is to this day considered, to shine out in great luster in his case; and moreover it is so considered, not only by his own relations and friends, but by every one to whom he can possibly be known on any account whatever to be a real citizen.

The media's current game:

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you don't trust us, you can't trust ANYONE

FTA

[nuckfuts]

Now every man must come at times to the aid of the party through the general precept that ethical behavior demands support of the community. It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins;

That's gold baby. GOLD!

Fake News

[PopeRatzo]

If you read the article closely, you'll learn that fake journals publish fake research papers. What a surprise.

Let's see him get his phony paper published in Nature, Annals of Mathematics or the Reviews of Modern Physics. Then we'll have something to talk about.

This is just another story from the hard Right (National Post was started by Canadian con-man Conrad Black) which seeks to convince people that you can't trust those crafty scientists so it can make it easier to get the yokels to believe whatever garbage they want them to believe.

Re:Fake News

[bertvanleussen]

Canadian con-man Conrad Black

I feel I must rectify. You actually mean: "British con-man Conrad Black".

He hasn't been Canadian for 15 years (and good riddance too, why they let him back in is a mystery to me).

Re: Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Queen ordered him to leave Britain, and (as head of state) ordered Canada to accept him back.

Re:Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a conspiracy from the hard right and not just pure profit motive. No tin foil hats here.

Re:Fake News

[PopeRatzo]

I feel I must rectify. You actually mean: "British con-man Conrad Black".

He hasn't been Canadian for 15 years (and good riddance too, why they let him back in is a mystery to me).

So I guess that means he finally got out of Federal prison. I know they sent him away for four years for fraud, but I don't remember him getting out or where he went. I'm surprised that as a convicted felon he was able to immigrate. I'm surprised anyone accepted him.

Re:Fake News

[geekmux]

If you read the article closely, you'll learn that fake journals publish fake research papers. What a surprise.

Let's see him get his phony paper published in Nature, Annals of Mathematics or the Reviews of Modern Physics. Then we'll have something to talk about...

Speaking of discussion, one would think that such a controversial topic as climate change would warrant said organizations to devote some time and resources to it, and publish the facts to quiet or alarm the masses once and for all.

Oh wait. Nevermind. Seems the problem more lies in believing said organizations.

Re:Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a conspiracy from the hard right and not just pure profit motive.

There's a difference?

got censor banned at cbc.ca

[Anonymous Coward]

and i can absolutely say that they don't want anyone over there speaking the truth how biased and anti free speech they all are...its there news there way and only what they want you to see.

i used to think the conservative party was bad....these idiots are just awful as well....and this is what got the usa trump and Canada is going to dump them two top parties as we all are getting sick n tired fo the crap....

goto cbc.ca and look how they are crying about how trump is anti media....NEWS FLASH TO THE LADY ...WE ALL ARE NOW , you cant be trusted period.

OH and look how many news stories you wish you could comment on and they keep comments closed and then when its some crap piece about how trumps wife should visit trudeau's wife they open things up...LIKE OMG THE PROPOGANDA IS AWFUL...

wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

its form the liberal left leaning media that just got pounded buy the usa election and all there friends want to see what i mean?

GOTO CBC.CA and look how they are crying about trumps stance on media...I'd be the exact same way they are nothing short of bought and paid for hollywood wannabe actors .....all sacks a lazy liars just reporting and saying what we all know.....THEY ARE JUST A PROPOGANDA ARM OF LIBERALS

Re:wrong

[PopeRatzo]

its form the liberal left leaning media that just got pounded buy the usa election and all there friends want to see what i mean?

What are you trying to say? Slow down and try again. If there's an adult home, have them help you with the hard words.

Re:wrong

[MillionthMonkey]

When do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that dumbness of yours still to mock us? When will there be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the readers armed with mod points- and the hostile responses you receive- does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men, when faced by your outrageous opinion, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your bullshit is debunked? Do you not see that your conspiracy theory is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which every one here possesses of it? What is there that you did, and what outrageous assessment was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?

Shame on this age and on its principles! The public is aware of these things, and yet you defecate them into public deliberations; some of you are watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every principled individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the nation if we keep out of the way of these frenzied attacks.

You ought long ago to have been led to execution by command of your own mother's gynecologist. That destruction which you have been long plotting against us ought to have already fallen on your own ass.

Re:wrong

[MrKaos]

Well said sir, were I to have mod point, I would adorn them on your finely worded and insightful post. Such eloquence.

To your lamentations I observe that they befoul our forum with their histrionic buffoonery, and layer, without alteration or abatement, words fecal in origin, uttered from flatulent lips that blubber and sputter forth so that even the best of us, congregated for discussion and contemplation of those things real aforementioned, long to see the hammer of natures laws, expressed in the physics and biology of our surroundings, come down hard upon their empty skulls, with a ceaseless, inescapable, pounding, inevitability that brings a full realization of their folly and little release of their discomfort. Let them drink deep for now, for fools know only folly if it is in the moment they thus occupy.

Highlights from "scientific" paper

[Lorens]

"If they do otherwise y are blamed," -- y was not defined beforehand, nor was x... But Y?

"for example the sort of actions which people in a prisoner-of-war camp have been force to perform." -- Use the Force! English conjugations are so freaking difficult!

"What sort of acts, we must ask, should be we call compulsory?" -- I didn't find the sentence in which he accidentally a whole verb, but I did find where the verb ended up!

"It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins" -- Aristotle . . . was he in Gryffindor or Ravenclaw?

"for who would bear fardles unless the person who does not understand these acts involuntarily?" -- and some editors should fall upon their bodkins

"But that is a topic for another day." -- This is probably the only sentence which is good enough for a fourth-grade paper . . . not good enough to get a good mark, of course.

Time for journals to be accredited?

[davidwr]

Perhaps it's time for reputable publishers and the academic community to get together and agree on some minimal standards about what it means to be a "reputable journal" or a "reputable publisher."

You missed the point.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.

You missed the point.

If you read even the SUMMARY of TFA, above, you'll see that the POINT was that the fake-journal operations are buying up REAL journals, with real reputations, and converting them into more pay-for-play fakes. (Their customers will no doubt be willing to pay even more for placement in a respected journal, before its reputation collapses.)

Re:You missed the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the summary, read tfa, and the Ottawa Citizen article, and I'm sorry but the Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics never was a real science journal.

The important distinction here is what constitutes science, and what some media organs would like to have you believe it is.

Good luck buying any of the well respected journals in the pure sciences. Not gonna happen.

Trump-ed up

[Anonymous Coward]

For people with ADD, who can only manage to read one sentence at a sitting, this doesn't matter.

If the shoe was on the other foot...

[WorBlux]

If the tides were turned.
If California were Red...
And Wyoming Blue...
Jeff Bezzon's Puppet
The WA-post paper
Would sing high praises
Of the that old bargin
The Connecticut Compromise

You see no politician has true principles, except for the principle of seeking more power.

"publication" peer review vs "science" peer review

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's a confusion between "pre-publication" peer review and the bigger "scientific peer review". The former is, as noted, looking for gross problems (uhh, you're breaking the laws of physics as we understand them, and you've not explained how), but more reasonably, is more of an editorial review: your graphs don't match the words; you need more trials to really be statistically significant; etc. Nobody expects pre-pub review to "duplicate research".

The bigger scientific process is where "peer review" in the big sense takes place. I publish a paper that shows an effect, propose a plausible mechanism, etc. Someone else does another paper showing that my proposed mechanism is or isn't likely. Or, worst case for me, someone repeats my experiments, following my processes, and gets totally different results. Then both of us wind up trying to figure out what happened. (barring outright fraud). But then, this is the good thing about science: the big discoveries come from someone saying "that's odd, and unexpected".

They made my life easier

[laughingskeptic]

For almost 4 years I was the director of what I like to refer to as a "software sweat shop" on the campus of a major university. Because of our generated revenue, my disliked boss was guaranteed tenure with the only requirement being that we publish six papers during those 3 years. We didn't have much to publish on other than case studies of end users and prognostications of the future of computers in ecology. If it weren't for lame journals I would have had to have devoted much more effort to getting our needed papers published rather than spending my time designing software and working with graduate students to meet our releases. My boss certainly wasn't going to write the papers though he did an excellent job of providing outlines, ideas and a paper writing methodology. I'm pretty sure we had 10 published papers by the time the 3 years was up, some being near repeats in different journals. My boss figured (rightly I'm sure) that we if just had 6 in the bag, that they might look for reasons to kick one or two out. But they weren't going to stoop to disqualifying half of our papers during the tenure review.

Re:They made my life easier

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you mean by "lame." There are plenty of completely legit journals for very mundane, boring results. In many fields, these journals serve as workhorses for things like calibration values, minutia of various commercial and repurposed equipment, and case studies of basic operation. They still have peer review checking for legitimacy, but have relaxed or missing requirements on significance. That is wholly different from fraud journals that completely lack actual peer review, and only slightly different from bigger journals that have tighter restrictions on importance and relevance of work.

Obsolete

[LesserWeevil]

In this age of near-universal Internet access, all scholarly research should be online - and free.

Wow.. misleading information.. I'm surprised.

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you correlate "Jones refused to release his data and his algortihms" with the article you linked to which says, and I quote:
"Although Jones agrees that the data should be made publicly available, he says that âoeit needs to be done in a systematic wayâ. He is now working to make the data publicly available online and will post a statement on the CRU website tomorrow to that effect, with any existing confidentiality agreements. âoeWeâ(TM)re trying to make them all available. Weâ(TM)re consulting with all the meteorological services â" about 150 members of WMO â" and will ask them if they are happy to release the dataâ, says Jones. But getting the all-clear from other nations could take several months and there may be objections. âoeSome countries donâ(TM)t even have their own data available as they havenâ(TM)t digitized it. We have done a lot of that ourselvesâ, he says."

Note that the 58 FOI requests (!) made to him 2 weeks prior to the article seems very unreasonable grounds to claim the data was not sent.. specially given that a letter was received saying attempts were underway to release the data!

There have been further studies with a variety of different data sets which corroborate the original Mann graph. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Continuing_research
  I feel like I'm dealing with the moon landing conspiracy theorists ( really.. were ALL the moon landings faked ?).

Re:Wow.. misleading information.. I'm surprised.

[Maritz]

You won't get a reply to that.

Re:Wow.. misleading information.. I'm surprised.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Simple: he never did release the data. And if you want to use proprietary data, more power to you! Just don't expect to use it for peer-reviewed articles because they can never be peer reviewed.

Re:Wow.. misleading information.. I'm surprised.

[david_thornley]

Peer review is not to validate every aspect of a paper. The goal is to see if the methodology is reasonable, and to bring up other things in the scientific literature. For a long time, nobody really expected a raw data dump for a peer-reviewed paper. The paper would describe the methodology of data collection and the principles behind the processing, preferably in enough detail to replicate all stages of the experiment or observation.

The problem with demanding data and source code is that replication with those tells you nothing. For a result to be considered valid, it's necessary to find out if it holds with independent data collection and independent software models based on the assumptions the paper makes.