Intelligent Design Peer review

Retraction Watch wonders: How did THIS nonsense end up in a peer-reviewed journal?

Spread the love
File:FileStack.jpg
What’s hot? What’s not?/Niklas Bildhauer, Wikimedia

And it isn’t even social science!:

Sometimes, a paper comes along that is so revolutionary, it defies description. So rather than try to do justice to a recent paper in Parasitology Research, we’ll reproduce a few paragraphs here:

“A certain point between the center of the earth and the center of a certain outer planet is where the gravities of each interact, where their energies are exchanged, and also where numerous other gravities are working. Therefore, matter composed of elements at this point could receive FOGF energy, named “BDong-ta-ra-con-ching,” and in turn more energy will be received by rotation and revolution of the earth. In order to induce this energy into matter, we developed the material remediation installation “BPutor” (Fig. 2), which could force synchronization in MBZ, make MBZ normally receive FOGF energy, and reduce toxicity of MBZ. It consisted of the “BEup-cha” and the “BNap-cha” putor program. The Eup-cha putor program induces energy from the center of the earth, whereas the Nap-cha putor program amplifies numerous weak extraterrestrial energies using natural matter, silkworm. To treat MBZ, the Eup-cha putor program was installed under MBZ and the Nap-cha putor program was installed over MBZ.” “Gravitational fields, silkworm excrement, and “putor” programs: How did this “pure, utter nonsense” get into in a peer-reviewed journal?” at RetractionWatch

Another question: Why are so many studies done about why laypeople don’t trust science and comparatively few done on what’s the matter with people who do “trust science” in an atmosphere where this stuff seems to flourish unchecked?

See also: Why it’s so hard to reform peer review Robert J. Marks: Reformers are battling numerical laws that govern how incentives work. Know your enemy! Measurement creates a temptation to achieve a measurable goal by less than totally honest means. As in physics, the simple act of measuring invariably disturbs what you are trying to measure.
and

Why the science spin snowball can’t stop. The bigger problem is overlooked. The basic philosophy of the people doing the science spins the story for them. We live in the age of the space detritus that was supposed to be an extraterrestrial lightsail and the conscious plants. And the talking apes. Oh yes, and the multiverse

The problem isn’t that people believe this stuff but that they consider it science.

Keep science honest. Keep up to date with Retraction Watch.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Retraction Watch wonders: How did THIS nonsense end up in a peer-reviewed journal?

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    Another question: Why are so many studies done about why laypeople don’t trust science and comparatively few done on what’s the matter with people who do “trust science” in an atmosphere where this stuff seems to flourish unchecked?

    It’s hardly flourishing unchecked if it’s just been retracted, is it?

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    Scientific publications have three levels of peer review.

    1) The editor decides whether the subject matter of the paper is appropriate for the journal. He/she also ensures that the format follows the criteria established by the journal.

    2) Initial peer review where it is sent to two or three people with expertise in the field.

    3) Ultimate peer review is conducted by all those who read the paper. It is through this process by which retractions are made.

    Given the fact that retractions occur suggests that this process works quite well.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    BEup-cha

  4. 4
    ET says:

    The biggest problem with peer-review is that the reviewers do NOT try to replicate the work. Very seldom does someone come along to try to replicate what others have done. Sadly there seems to be little funding and less interest at doing so.

  5. 5
    News says:

    The problem isn’t whether or not it was retracted but how it got published in the first place. Clearly, more is wrong than people want to face. That won’t help.

Leave a Reply