It appears that a journal has just had to retract 60 papers because scientists set up a fake peer review ring of fake identities so that they could review their own and each others papers. At the moment only the ring leader of the group Dr. Peter Chen has been identified but other scientists were also involved in the ring. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/...review-and-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted/ IMHO as long as career advancement is determined by publication there will always be those gaming the system and with journals cutting back more and more on the costs of peer review, its most done on-line these days the editors never even meet the reviewers, the system will get easier and easier to game.
I'm not surprised. Peer review seems to be a "political" agenda to get more funding for projects that have no business being funded in the first place. Anthropogenic global warming immediately comes to mind.
Look, the article is about a scandal over peer review in the Journal of Vibration and Control. This has absolutely NOTHING, nada, zip, zilch, zero, and no relationship whatsoever to anything even remotely connected to climatology and/or even the entirety of the Earth Sciences. It is truly beyond belief to me that anyone could even think of making any connection between the two. Amazing, like saying "I was ripped off by a lawyer, therefore all doctors are crooks (since they're professionals) and this diagnosis I have of an operable brain tumor is just to rip off my insurance company. I'm going to listen to my funeral director friend and take some aspirin."
Okay....some guy submitted technical papers to an obscure journal which covers an obscure field of study and used his buddies to peer review his work and he did the same for them. One is left to wonder just how many scientists there even are in the "Vibration and Control" field to begin with. Attempting to use this issue to debunk the sciences seems desperate and ignorant. What agenda are you presenting this BS to further....Climate Change?
My GF says she has an article for them that should excite some discussion (She literally could not stop laughing when she saw that Journal title.)
I didn't say the article had anything to do with anthropogenic global warming. I provided an example as to how peer reviewed articles aren't necessarily worth the paper they're written on. Please quote accurtately if you're going to quote anyone. At any rate, I don't trust peer reviewed articles per se. I'll stand by mystatement: ... Peer review seems to be a "political" agenda to get more funding for projects that have no business being funded in the first place.
Vibration and vibration control is a major aspect of anything structural and many other field for that matter. I'm sorry that you are so ignorant of science that you think vibration isn't important. That doesn't say much about our education system.
While I appreciate the effort it must have taken for you to think up the incredibly powerful insult....my point stands, and my question remains unanswered....not surprising.
If there was enough respect for independently verified information the 911 fake peer review scam that the fake truth movement promoted years ago would have been exposed. I had actually never heard the term "peer review" until about 2005, or if I did it was associated with a preliminary, non final appraisal of something.
Your point does not stand. It was an ignorant statement nothing more. You know nothing of vibration(harmonics) and its importance in science. Your question is a pathetic attempt to derail the thread. I dont feed trolls.
Let me get this straight. It appears a single person published false articles. Perhaps there was others involved or perhaps it was the same Dr Chen using fake IDs, but regardless, the journal that the supposedly fake studies were published discovered the problem and published the discrepancy and took the appropriate actions. This article, if anything, demonstrates the reason studies are peer reviewed. Science works.
In 2013 the then Editor-in-Chief of JVC, Professor Ali H. Nayfeh,and SAGE became aware of a potential peer review ring involving assumed and fabricated identities used to manipulate the online submission system SAGE Track powered by ScholarOne Manuscripts™. Immediate action was taken to prevent JVC from being exploited further, and a complex investigation throughout 2013 and 2014 was undertaken with the full cooperation of Professor Nayfeh and subsequently NPUE.
That has absolutely nothing to do with peer review. The peer review process is you submit a paper and the editor sends it out to peers that you usually suggest as being qualified to review the paper and the review is anonymous. Investigation into fraud is not a part of peer review. And we do not know how the editor became aware. In these cases it is usually a slip up on the part of the fraudster, he sent a reckless e-mail or said something to someone. None of that has anything to do with peer review or science. If anything the nature of the peer review process is what allowed this to occur for as long as it did. The author suggests the reviewers and the editor usually has no clue who they are, if they even exist, or if they are even qualified, nor does anyone who reads the paper know who reviewed it. Perhaps if peer review was not anonymous then people in the field who read the paper would notice that reviewers A, B, and C do not exist or if the are being spoofed reviewer A, B & C would realize that they didn't review any such paper. This fraud is a failure of peer review not a success. You cant win Mak I'm better than you at this.
You said it was a success of "peer review" and "science"? Please explain how either "peer review" or science caught this fraud. Both are well know methods. Please point to what part of the peer review method or the scientific method discovered this fraud. As is usually the case with most scientific frauds the fraud is only discovered because the fraudster slipped up. If I had to fathom a guess I would say that the most likely reason this was found out was because Dr. Chen accidentally spoofed someone the editor knew.
Ok fine, you are right peer review did not discover it. So should I now beleive all scinece is "junk" science?
The majority of it is. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 And Dr. Ioannidis does his analysis assuming that the scientists are making honest mistakes. He doesn't even take fraud into account.
Heaven's no! Just realize that peer reviewed doesn't mean as much as it's cracked up to, or should, be. As far as PR goes, if the topic is political in any way I'll not accept a PR since most science journals turn to "where the money is". Anthropogenic global warming immediately comes to mind.
Impossible! Science is our God, Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson both said so. These men have PhDs in science, we must trust them...we are mere ordinaries...commoners to the likes of these men and women of Science. They are above corruption! Science is never fallible, Science is never corrupt. She blinded me with Science! So seriously, we've learned the fallibility of human nature can infect all aspects of human endeavors including the pursuit of scientific inquiry.
Segan would be a good case study of that. As a socialist he always came back to socialism. He never explored other options.
But there is no demonstrable fraud of this kind happening with AGW so far. Anyway, the biggest BS involved in "climate change" is in the doomsday predictions and the attempts to impose taxes for CO2 output. Politics ruin everything..
Clearly it depends on the peer(s) involved. The OP was a case of fraud involving non-existent peers, if I'm not mistaken.
