Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Peer review is well and truly bust

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Go here for more:

In 2011, after having read several really bad papers in the journal Science, I decided to explore just how slipshod their peer-review process is. I knew that their business depends on publishing “sexy” papers. So I created a manuscript that claimed something extraordinary – that I’d discovered a species of bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA instead of phosphorus. But I made the science so egregiously bad that no competent peer reviewer would accept it. The approach was deeply flawed – there were poor or absent controls in every figure. I used ludicrously elaborate experiments where simple ones would have done. And I failed to include a simple, obvious experiment that would have definitively shown that arsenic was really in the bacteria’s DNA. I then submitted the paper to Science, punching up the impact the work would have on our understanding of extraterrestrials and the origins of life on Earth in the cover letter. And what do you know? They accepted it!

Remember this when people tell you ID isn’t peer reviewed.

That just means it didn’t pass the local witch test.

Comments
But Darwin didn't make a mistake, oh no.Mung
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
Jerad, you may be missing the point. The point isn’t how slipshod the peer review system is, the point is that this paper should never have been published in the first place.
Mistakes happen! All the time. How could you possibly designed a system that was run by human beings that avoided all mistakes!! I agree the paper was sub-standard. AND, guess what, it was exposed! Until someone comes up with a better system I think we should stick with what we got. Have you got a better system?Jerad
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Jerad, you may be missing the point. The point isn't how slipshod the peer review system is, the point is that this paper should never have been published in the first place.Barb
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
Did you guys not read past the part where it says “this is not exactly what happened”?
Yup. No one is saying the peer review system is perfect; it's administered by human beings!! If you've got a better system please present it. This example shows up why repeatability is a key issue. One result is interesting but until it's been verified and duplicated it's just one result. It could be right, it could be wrong. Hopefully the peer review process catches most of the most egregious mistakes and goofs.Jerad
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
From the article: "OK – this isn’t exactly what happened. I didn’t actually write the paper. Far more frighteningly, it was a real paper that contained all of the flaws described above that was actually accepted, and ultimately published by Science". Did you guys not read past the part where it says "this is not exactly what happened"?sixthbook
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Did news not read down to the part where the author admits this is NOT actually what happened? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH I'm afraid the News desk is a bit wonky these days.Jerad
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Well, the paper wasn't faked, it was an actual submission. It still contained those faults apparently...Sebestyen
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Crazy idea: if the bit you copy from article is not in fact true, then perhaps you should make that clear when you paste it here. Under the "news" heading.wd400
October 6, 2013
October
10
Oct
6
06
2013
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply