Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Peer review

Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 30, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

Are science journals starting to behave like Facebook?

Denyse O'Leary
September 30, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review
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." Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 23, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review, Science
Tagged
, ,

Surgisphere scandal results in change in editorial practices at The Lancet

Denyse O'Leary
September 23, 2020
Intelligent Design, Medicine, Peer review, Science
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. " Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
September 9, 2020
Categorized
Extraterrestrial life, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , , , , ,

At Retraction Watch: “Transparently absurd” paper at Elsevier

Denyse O'Leary
September 9, 2020
Extraterrestrial life, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Retraction Watch: Erm, about that concerning peer review process. Elsevier also was the publisher of the equally risible book chapter claiming that COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 21, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
Tagged
, ,

Psychologist sounds alarm: We are turning science into science fiction!

Denyse O'Leary
August 21, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review, Philosophy, Science
But now, here’s a problem: In the world of the war on math, what, exactly, is wrong with science fiction replacing science? If 2 + 2 does not necessarily = 4, how can we be expected to even know that bogosity is wrong? Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
August 3, 2020
Categorized
Academic Freedom, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, , , ,

A Darwinian biologist who has debated ID folk describes getting Canceled

Denyse O'Leary
August 3, 2020
Academic Freedom, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Peer review
Over time, science in many areas is likely to wither as it comes more and more under the domination of trolls with agendas. And, curiously, being a Darwinist is no longer a form of protection. Read More ›
Type
post
Author
Denyse O'Leary
Date
May 15, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
, ,

Robert J. Marks: Time to change the peer review system

Denyse O'Leary
May 15, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Marks: The assumption that today’s peer-reviewed paper has been vetted by experts and therefore has been awarded a blue ribbon for excellence is far from the truth. Peer review often does not do its job. Consequently, today’s collection of scholarly literature is exploding in quantity and deteriorating in quality. Read More ›
Type
post
Date
April 30, 2020
Categorized
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Tagged
,

Business prof argues: Journals these days are obsessed by theory

April 30, 2020
Intelligent Design, Peer review
Marinetto: The fetishisation of theory does have practical payoffs for editors. For one Swedish academic, Pär J. Ågerfalk, the charge of “insufficient theoretical contribution” can be employed as a neat rhetorical brush-off for submissions that editors do not like the look of but “cannot quite put their finger on why”. Read More ›