If a rival is going to accuse you of having an affair with his cat, the most important thing you want is for him to publish his accusation on the worldwide Web under his own name.
Karl Giberson is the last man alive, according to his own testimony, who really, truly believes in peer review. Give the man credit for a lot of faith.
In “The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism” Scientific American (July 5, 2011), Michael Shermer informs us, dependency on belief and its host of psychological biases is why, in science, we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know […]
The genius mustn’t say anything that frightens the sheep.
Social signals are potent, and among the most potent are “Who You Know” and “Who You Owe.” Trouble is, these signals tend to travel exclusive channels. Subtle checklists lurk at every turn. And quantitative research methods often do not identify key signals like “Do WE need him to succeed?” Insightful qualitative analysis is the next step.
Why wasn’t that polar bear scientist a full-time Darwinist writing about human evolution? His speculations would be way safer.
If it’s really a criminal investigation, apologies will not settle the matter.
Global warming is especially attractive because it justifies hatred of unfashionable people.
At Genomes Unzipped: Personal Public Genomics, Joe Pickrell starts another round of “What’s wrong with peer review,” raising the stakes: He asks, “Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals?” (13/07/2011), arguing In this post, I will argue that cutting journals out of scientific publishing to a large extent would be unconditionally a good thing, and that […]
Naomi Schaefer Riley discusses “The Economic Upside to Ending Tenure” ( Chronicle of Higher Education, June 19, 2011): In her new book, The Faculty Lounges: and Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Paid For (Ivan R. Dee), Naomi Schaefer Riley argues that faculty tenure is among the factors contributing to the […]
Here, we’ve written a fair bit about peer review, but so have lots of sources. Here’s E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance (climate Armageddon skeptics), It now arises that the failures occur not just in climate science but across the board, as the article “Classical Peer Review: An Empty Gun” (published in a peer-reviewed […]
From New Scientist we learn, “Shamed Harvard scientist is barred from the classroom” (Peter Aldhous, 21 April 2011): Marc Hauser, the prominent animal cognition researcher found guilty of scientific misconduct by Harvard University last year, is to receive no rapid rehabilitation by his closest colleagues. He’s the one who made Discover’s Top Ten Retractions list […]
At AITSE (Caroline Crocker’s outfit), we are reminded of an Atlantic article (November 2010) on how little peer review actually contributes to the growth of a stable knowledge base: Dr. John Ioannidis, formerly of Harvard University, Johns Hopkins and National Institutes of Health, is currently leading a team investigating whether medical research studies can be […]
In “Supplemental or detrimental?: Journals debate the value of supplemental materials”, Michele Solis reports at The Scientist (24th February 2011) on the problem material supplemental to journal publications, available only online, materials publication creates for peer review, and the bold step Journal of Neuroscience and several other journals have taken by just abolishing it: Editor-in-chief […]
Casey Luskin Reports: Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper by Michael Behe Challenges “Gain of Function” Mutations in Molecular Evolution Behe argues that we do not generally observe the evolution of new adaptive FCTs (Functional Coded ElemenTs) in the laboratory. Rather, when we observe adaptive evolutionary changes in the laboratory, they typically involve loss of function or modification […]