A Cornell U psych prof warns against letting the career lardbellies know in so many words that you plan to shake things up a bit.
Peer review
Gizmodo asks experts to name the biggest science frauds of the past 50 years
Dr. Hesselmann’s probably right but how depressing. In a world where so much research that doesn’t involve fraud fails replication, it’s just a fact that most published research papers in many fields are probably wrong or at least sloppy. So why bother with fraud? But not exactly a good look for science.
As part of science reform, should peer reviewers be paid?
Payment would change the landscape in a number of ways. Reviewing would become less of an imposition and more of a job. Whether it would become fairer is unclear but it might become a lot faster. Many might be glad for that.
Karsten Pultz comes to the defense of the Elsevier editors who say they did not know that the Hossjer–Thorvaldsen paper was ID-friendly
The editors need not, of course, sympathize with the ID perspective to think that evidence for it should be permitted to be discussed. At one time, that was a conventional intellectual position. But the Darwinians, as we’ve said here earlier, are an early flowering of Cancel Culture. No evidence may be discussed that may be thought to favor an Incorrect view.
Advice to experts on humility
Ballantyne is known for the concept of “epistemic trespassing,” where a scholar, convinced that his thesis explains the universe, invades other disciplines like the mad bull charging into the literary tearoom.
One of those rare instances where science is self-correcting … Ioannidis is vindicated
Hey, that’s good news. But what about all the people whose lives were turned upside down by the herd of stampeding buffalo otherwise known as our moral and intellectual superiors?
Some researchers arrive at an important truth about “consensus science”
Researchers: “When individuals are fully independent, even under highly unfavorable circumstances a consensus provides strong evidence for the correctness of the affirmed position. This no longer remains the case once dependence, polarization, and external pressure are introduced. With such interventions, the probability of a false consensus increases dramatically.
” “Shut up, he explained” is not consensus, it’s false consensus.
That notorious ID paper was the one most downloaded from the Journal…
Eventually, people, we are going to have to start rewarding the Darwinians for banning and persecuting advocates of design in nature. Look, guys, it’s only fair. Mediocrities steam themselves into near oblivion to destroy the idea and their efforts only fan the flames. Sadly, all we wanted was a serious discussion. We never asked them to be Roman candles.
The replication crisis in science grinds on into another decade
At Vox: Most papers fail to replicate for totally predictable reasons.
Now the Journal of Theoretical Biology is publishing a rebuttal letter to the design-friendly paper
Which is fine in principle. But be realistic. The Darwin mob, an early flowering of Cancel Culture, will not be satisfied with anything less than retraction and the obliteration of the careers of everyone involved. If that is accomplished by scandalously spurious means, all the better for the mob. That increases its sense of power and self-justification. Saying NO! To them is an act of liberation.
Here’s the Twitter discussion of that ID-friendly paper at the Journal of Theoretical Biology
The Darwinist commenters below the tweet would put one in mind of coyotes except that coyotes must, perforce, have pack standards. They can’t just howl ANYTHING they please… Well, we shall see what happens next.
Another take on what went wrong with Surgisphere
We are told that the warning signs “were there all along”
Are science journals starting to behave like Facebook?
Chuck Dinerstein, MD, argues the case. ” You would think that if a fraction of that money, say 1%, which is about $30 million, could be redirected at paying for peer-review, we might get a better quality product.”
Surgisphere scandal results in change in editorial practices at The Lancet
At The Scientist: “Like Malički, Watson and other researchers note that the changes don’t address larger, more general issues highlighted by Surgisphere’s papers, including journals’ reluctance to push authors to share data and code for published studies, and an overall lack of transparency in how papers are reviewed before and after publication. “
New Nature journal on computer science tackles the reproducibility problem
It’s one of the biggest problems in science—and computers are part of the problem.