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 The paper was withdrawn after this was discovered, but why didn't the journal editors catch this before it was published?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.- The supporting information for a recently published chemistry paper contained an editorial note that was inadvertently left in the published document. Not only did the journal's editors fail to catch this, but the paper's author is apparently being told to make up fake data: "Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis..." [url]
- A bizarre and completely unintelligible journal article that was recently published in a peer-reviewed journal has people wondering if it's a joke. The author spends most of the time explaining, in the most convoluted and incomprehensible manner, what the paper is apparently about, without really telling the audience what the paper is about. [url]
- The number of retracted scientific papers is increasing -- but not necessarily because more scientists are fabricating, falsifying, or modifying data. It's more likely because there is now an increased awareness of research misconduct, a greater audience thanks to the internet, and better software to detect plagiarism, image manipulation, etc. The blog Retraction Watch keeps track of scientific papers that have been retracted. [url]
- Check out some of last year's worst scientific mistakes, missteps, and misdeeds. These include at least one author who faked the e-mail addresses of and impersonated his paper's reviewers. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: authorship, fake data, fraud, journals, peer review, publishing, retracted paper, science
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meh.
It's all made up in the end anyway.
I don't come across as jaded, do I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Human condition
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 !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Human condition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results
It's an academic variation on "you're a bad person for liking things I don't like."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results
As opposed to a number illiterate scientist?
wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results
tf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: re: That second one scans like poetry, rather than study results
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]