Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Peer review

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
November 9, 2021
Categorized
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Tagged
,

From the world of “Trust the science… ”

Denyse O'Leary
November 9, 2021
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Reform is nearly impossible if the incentive structure remains as it is — rewarding publication in and of itself. On the other hand, nothing stays the same forever and growing public cynicism might provide a spur to reform. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 31, 2021
Categorized
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

Canceled exoplanets prof Dorian Abbot at the Wall Street Journal

Denyse O'Leary
October 31, 2021
Academic Freedom, Intelligent Design, Peer review
The thing is, in 2017, it was ultra-progressive places like Evergreen where the liberal biology teachers could be run off campus. Now it’s MIT, folks... Either Woke goes or science does. But bureaucrats find it easier to cater to Woke than to resist. The more bureaucrats there are, the less university there will be. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 28, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
,

Free index to world’s research papers a boon to vast literature searches

Denyse O'Leary
October 28, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review
At Nature: "In a project that could unlock the world’s research papers for easier computerized analysis, an American technologist has released online a gigantic index of the words and short phrases contained in more than 100 million journal articles — including many paywalled papers." Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
October 25, 2021
Categorized
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

Science writer asks: Why are medical journals full of fashionable nonsense?

Denyse O'Leary
October 25, 2021
Climate change, Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Alex Berezow: The point is that hopping aboard a political bandwagon is good for grabbing attention — and subsequently, funding. We are witnessing a similar phenomenon with respect to climate change. No matter how extraneous a topic, researchers try to tie it to climate change. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 23, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, ,

Trust in science: How the replication crisis got started

Denyse O'Leary
September 23, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Sarah Perry: In my experience, it is the norm, rather than the exception, for cited claims in popular science books and review papers to misstate the claims of their sources. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 21, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, ,

At Lancet: An appeal for an honest debate in science about the origin of COVID-19

Denyse O'Leary
September 21, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
We wish Jacques van Helden and his co-authors good luck getting an honest discussion going. It’s not like China is going to become transparent anytime soon. In any event, few virus researchers would want to be told bluntly that, because gain-of-function research in viruses can go badly wrong, they now face controls. Some nations wouldn’t heed the controls. And nature never responds - on her own - to calls for clarification. Most likely, whatever happened with COVID will need to happen again a few more times until a pattern develops. Then we’ll see. It doesn’t help that Lancet itself became politicized in recent years. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 19, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
,

Policy analyst: More funding is not going to solve current science problems

Denyse O'Leary
September 19, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Two thoughts: Unclear what Dr. Mills means by a “so-called” “replication crisis.” There IS a replication crisis. They can call it an ice cream cone if they want. Second, more funding, under the circumstances, not only “could” make the problems worse; they almost certainly WILL do so. If systemic issues are not addressed, more funding helps magnify the problem. It’s like giving a gambling addict more money. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 19, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, , ,

At least, the “science of obesity” is now a legitimate topic of discussion

Denyse O'Leary
September 19, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Another well-known science writer, Ross Pomeroy, says Gary Taubes is wrong. It is a good thing we get to hear both sides of the argument. That is not happening often enough. People who complain about popular doubt or denial of science are too often among the first to demand that only their side of the argument be published — thus fueling the very thing they complain about. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 18, 2021
Categorized
Artificial Intelligence, Design inference, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

Design inference: AI, ID, and detecting deceit

Denyse O'Leary
September 18, 2021
Artificial Intelligence, Design inference, Intelligent Design, Peer review
The next iterations of science fraud will employ machine learning trained on enough of the internet to avoid obvious goofs. We will need better, more sophisticated methods. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 10, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

Statistician Ioannidis on how COVID wrecked science

Denyse O'Leary
September 10, 2021
Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review
Readers may remember John Ioannidis. His point here is that getting more people involved with science doesn’t always work: "A lack of sharing and openness allowed a top medical journal to publish an article in which 671 hospitals allegedly contributed data that did not exist, and no one noticed this outright fabrication before publication." Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 23, 2021
Categorized
Ethics, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, , , , ,

We did NOT make this up: Famed Honesty researcher’s paper retracted over made-up data

Denyse O'Leary
August 23, 2021
Ethics, Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Of course, before the revelation that a main experiment was faked, Ariely was featured in TED talks, had an advice column in the Wall Street Journal and wrote a New York Times bestseller. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
July 12, 2021
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, ,

Asked at Reason Magazine: How much science research is fraudulent?

Denyse O'Leary
July 12, 2021
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Science
Bailey: The possibility that fraud may well be responsible for a significant proportion of the false positives reported in the scientific literature is suggested by a couple of new Dutch studies. Both studies are preprints that report the results of surveys of thousands of scientists in the Netherlands aiming to probe the prevalence of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
June 21, 2021
Categorized
Culture, Intelligent Design, Media, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, , , , , ,

Nature attempts to paper over a genuine and reasonable lack of trust in China over COVID-19

Denyse O'Leary
June 21, 2021
Culture, Intelligent Design, Media, Peer review, Science
This matters to us because it bears on the fate of science in general, as China becomes a global superpower. Nature Editorial: "Such trends are likely to continue if geopolitical tensions with the United States worsen. That would be regrettable." No, it wouldn’t be “regrettable.” Not so long as China cannot be trusted. Read More ›