Moscow monument to peer review recycles a useless cement block
| May 30, 2017 | Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, Peer review |
Perfect. From Quirin Schiermeier at Nature:
Monument to peer review unveiled in Moscow: Cornerstone of modern science immortalized in concrete.
Last year, the director of the HSE’s Institute of Education, Isak Froumin, had asked his faculty for ideas about how to turn a useless block of concrete outside the university into something attractive and meaningful. More.
Unfortunately, the way things are going, peer review is more likely to be the tombstone of science than the cornerstone and one can only hope that the debate about the problem is as vigorous in Moscow as here.
Keep up to date with Retraction Watch
See also: Breaking: National Academy of Sciences notices research integrity problem
Hat tip:Pos-Darwinista
7 Responses to Moscow monument to peer review recycles a useless cement block
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I can see some more sides to the die:
“Inappropriate Conclusion”
“Add AGW Genuflection”
“Remove Design Reference”
“Too Male”
“Offensive To Muslims or Gays”
“Not Even Wrong”
Andrew
Sure, asauber at 1, but that isn’t a die, it is technically a diatribe. 😉
4 U News,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-4-gLlF0uw 😉
Andrew
Seriously funny. 🙂
I like this.
Thanks.
peer review issue?
https://uncommondescent.com/peer-review/can-too-much-publishing-be-bad-for-science/#comment-595947
This was posted in another thread (http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-593408) over a month ago, but no one answered the questions. Let’s try it again here:
This paper:
http://journal.frontiersin.org.....08/full#h1
seems to have a terminology error in the conclusion.
On the first eight pages the term “post-translational modifications (PTMs)” (both plural and singular) seems to appear around 10 times. The term “post-transcriptional modifications” doesn’t seem to be mentioned even once. However, on the ninth page the “Conclusion” refers to “post-transcriptional modifications (PTMs)” instead.
That seems like an error, doesn’t it?
If that’s the case, then how did that error pass the review?
How did it go unnoticed by the reviewers?
Maybe that’s not an error after all?
Can someone read it and tell us whether that’s an error or not?
Thanks.
BTW, note the article shows who reviewed the given paper and how long it took for the paper to get through peer-review.
PS. If the pointed observation is confirmed as an error, could a possible explanation for it to have gone under the peer review radar be that the reviewers were experts that could read the given paper fast, without paying attention to details? Then it may take an ignorant outsider to detect the potential mistake, right?
Not sure if this has been discussed around here yet, but it seems pertinent. Old news, but pertinent.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/i-foole.....1707251800