Peer review | Uncommon Descent

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
July 2, 2012

Categorized
News, Peer review}

Science plagiarism a booming business?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 2, 2012

News, Peer review}

Was plagiarism always this common, but only recently easy to detect, using machine methods? Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
June 29, 2012

Categorized
Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

Peer review: The value of teaching vs. publishing

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 29, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

Henderson’s’suggestion - describing the work of the academic who mainly teaches as “consumatory scholarship” - is a word game. There is a more direct way. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
June 24, 2012

Categorized
News, Peer review}

Why peer review is obsolete and what to do about it

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 24, 2012

News, Peer review}

"Peer-review selection isn't a practical priority for a website like arxiv.org, because there is little cost associated with letting dross rot quietly in a forgotten corner of the site. " Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
June 21, 2012

Categorized
Climate change, News, Peer review}

Peer review: Putting politics before science on ultimate PC issue, climate change…

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 21, 2012

Climate change, News, Peer review}

... and then wondering why people don’t take the science seriously. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Salvador Cordova

Date
June 17, 2012

Categorized
Ecology, extinction, Global Warming, Media, Peer review, Science}

UD Commenter Nick Matzke in Prestigious Scientific Journal Nature Again

_{Salvador Cordova

June 17, 2012

Ecology, extinction, Global Warming, Media, Peer review, Science}

I believe this is already the 2nd time that Nick has graced the pages of the world’s leading science journal. See: Predicting a state shift in the biosphere, and communicating it. Looks like it is the cover story too! Nick and I have been opponents in the ID / Evolution debate for years. I’m glad that scientists of his caliber visit UD and debate with us. Congrats Nick. PS The other time I congratulated Nick was here: Congrats Nick Matzke for Publishing ID Sympathetic Paper

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
June 10, 2012

Categorized
Darwinism, News, Peer review}

Yes, Darwinists have heard about replication …

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 10, 2012

Darwinism, News, Peer review}

... which is why they don’t do it very often. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
May 25, 2012

Categorized
Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

In one study, half the scientists admitted to reporting only desired results

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 25, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

Sometimes reforms must go deeper than that proposal. They need to become the people who would not take those shortcuts in the first place. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
May 22, 2012

Categorized
Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

What gets past peer review these days? Immortality through exercise …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 22, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

"Man would be immortal if only he did sufficient daily exercise, something in the region of six hours." (?) Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
May 20, 2012

Categorized
Intelligent Design, News, Origin Of Life, Peer review}

Conformism in science fueled by unproductive competition, says researcher who got around it

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Origin Of Life, Peer review}

Ninety per cent of the research is on 10% of the genes. And industry is relying on us to be innovative? ... we’re not doing society a service in the way we do research. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
May 19, 2012

Categorized
News, Peer review}

Replication woes: What never existed can’t be replicated.

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 19, 2012

News, Peer review}

Of course, cleaning house at those journals would be a darn good idea, but let’s not break out the bubbly yet. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
May 10, 2012

Categorized
News, Peer review}

Admitted: Research is “riddled with systematic errors”?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 10, 2012

News, Peer review}

"Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves." Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
April 28, 2012

Categorized
Darwinism, News, Peer review, Physics}

Mathematician Granville Sewell denied right to respond to rebuttals in journal

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 28, 2012

Darwinism, News, Peer review, Physics}

Once again, Darwinism’s questionable relationship to thermodynamics is the issue. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
April 23, 2012

Categorized
News, Peer review}

Peer review: Maybe cancer won’t kill you, but bad data about it will

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 23, 2012

News, Peer review}

"After publishing a paper on a rare head-and-neck cancer, he learned the cells he had been studying were instead cervical cancer." Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
April 22, 2012

Categorized
Atheism, Culture, News, Peer review}

When getting theists to say they trust atheists, nothing beats fear of the police

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 22, 2012

Atheism, Culture, News, Peer review}

After repeal of infamous Section 13 becomes general knowledge, it will be interesting to see if this study’s results are reproducible. Read More ›

^{Type
post

Author
Denyse O'Leary

Date
April 21, 2012

Categorized
Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

Scientists puzzle over causes of huge increase in fraud

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 21, 2012

Intelligent Design, News, Peer review}

"In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent." Read More ›