Peer review
Who’s the most common type of scientific miscreant?
How can we end the scandals in science if we misrepresent their cause?
Settled science is a Cadillac for fraudsters
Will data sharing reduce the number of research scandals?
A scientist explains the problem with bias in science
Philosopher: “Physics envy” is the heart of the widespread research cheating problem
Physicist sues journal Nature over article, claiming libel
Latest climate change scandal: Lead BEST study author accused of trying to mislead the public – by co-author
Scientists, our moral and intellectual superiors: Big Dutch researcher made up or manipulated dozens of papers
You think YOUR tenured lecture room bore is bad?
Check out this guy and his administration: Dora Doormat and Flora Floormat.
Peer reviewer advice addresses cattiness and duplicity
To listen to Karl Giberson, Discovery Institute is why many people doubt peer review
Skepticism can be just another scheme for avoiding reality
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 conditions during data collection. Collaboration with colleagues is vital. Results are vetted at conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research is replicated in other laboratories. Disconfirming evidence and contradictory interpretations of data are included in the analysis. If you don’t seek data and arguments against your theory, someone else will, usually with great glee and in a public forum. This is why skepticism is a Read More ›