Long-time WUWT reader “Latitude” writes:
Academic journals are caught up in massive hoax involving 20 FAKE papers on ‘dog rape culture’, ‘a conceptual penis’ and re-printing a version of MEIN KAMPF
Their aim was to expose how ‘absurdities’ get published in legitimate peer-reviewed academic papers due to a lack of critical review.
In total the team of three researchers wrote 20 hoax papers on a field of study loosely defined as ‘grievance studies’.
These papers – seven of which were accepted and four published online – were based on just ‘nutty or inhumane’ ideas that they ran with.
The authors claim their prank shows that higher education’s fixation with identity politics has created ‘absurd and horrific’ scholarship, according to an in-depth piece by Wall Street Journal.
They even associated male anatomy with climate change.
BTW, this excellent post in 2016 was prescient:
And just this year, there was another expose’
Ooops: “lid blown off” the trustworthiness of scientific peer review
According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.
“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.
“Medicine, epidemiology, population science, and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.
When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.
Physics has its many problems as well. The dark energy and dark matter fiasco being the prime example.
Bring on the gravitational wave observatories to simplify and clarify the universe.
Regarding climate-science research papers, are there severe consequences for peer reviewers, who don’t toe the line?
Now suppose the papers were fully reviewed and passed for inclusiveness reasons.
Below is a link to a site that has the full story of the affair referred to in the heading of this post, written by the perpetrators.
Look for a an feature article with the title “Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship”
at
https://areomagazine.com/category/features/
Irrespective of the field of science, reputed journals have their peers. Most of them work as “you scratch my back and I scratch your back”. Many a times the papers are published based on the name of the author and or institution. A nobel prize winner withdrew his paper after receiving Nobel Prize from the journal. When I was in IMD, Pune, librarian saw a paper in reputed journal and showed us the findings. In fact he did not know the the data was in inches prior to 1957 and in mm from 1957. This was brought to the notice of the author by IMD, he withdrew the paper. When I submitted a paper to IMD Journal, the reviewer said “use of radiation in pollution studies is unscientific” and suggested to reject it. I sent my detailed reply then the Editor [DG of IMD] accepted the paper for publication. When I submitted a work developed and implemented in Mozambique for crop early warning, the international journal sent to two peers for review. One accepted the paper for publication and the other said “it can also be fitted to linear curve” — in fact this is my comment on the peers article earlier in Agronomy journal of US –. The regional editor rejected the paper — though earlier around 10 papers were published in that journal. Then I sent a letter of nearly 100 pages on how the peers work. Later, the editor-in-chief got my letter reviewed by three regional editors and published in three parts. So, it is not confined to climate change but also several fields of science. There is another case, a girl submitted a paper [medial science] to a reputed journal, this paper went a high profile peer. He rejected the paper and revised it and got it published on his his + groups name. The girst brought to the notice of medical committee [wherein the peer was a deputy president] and the committee got the paper withdrawn and the peer was removed from the post. Like this we can show several cases.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Oh my. But there are certain topics that go front of the line (they like “edgy” topics) and others that languish. I guess going to the front gives you a pass on integrity…
Not surprised. But science has to grow up sometime, and “skepticism” is one of the things holding science back. How can I say this? Because skepticism contains the potent negative bias of “doubt.” Doesn’t anyone realize that science should never be biased?
The actual active ingredients within skepticism which forward the thrust of discovery are “restraint” and “humility.” Why not simply use these last two elements, and dump the doubt?
Science is accomplished by the desire for answers, the restraint from jumping to the easiest conclusion, and the humility to accept the answers provided by the evidence. True, “skepticism” sounds chic and sophisticated, but it’s toxic, especially when ego and subjective attitude get involved. Then, you get nasty things like the “Clovis First” dogma, unsupported dismissiveness (appeal to the stone), and self-indulgent ridicule with its heavy reliance on ad hominem.