The problem predates DIE. Publish or perish is the problem. over three decades ago I was dismayed by how many times I found the same numerical method rederived with slightly different packaging.
I'm DIEing to know what word or phrase was accidentally left off the penultimate paragraph in today's excellent article!
(here it is)
"In any case, less than 1% sure seems low to me. Especially since you and I, dear reader, have investigated hundreds of what are touted as the best papers, and we have found them wanting. Few were outright frauds, and few contained outright"
As a retired schoolteacher I can assure you children are no longer receiving a sound education either at home or the minimum security facilities that pass for schools now. It began with the civil rights act of 1965. Under the radar saying among teachers: if you're not a racist when you start your teaching career you will be by the time you retire.
Science (the process of investigation) needs to be returned to the lone,self-funded, non-conformists who publish for anyone to read and care not one jot for peer approval.
Demand that SCIENCE! generate 2 to 4 papers per year for the holy tenure stole to be awarded and this is one of the things you get. Science just doesn't move that fast, but SCIENCE does.
You get what you pay for, Science Journals.
Or rather what you make THEM pay for.
Enjoy that fraud as seasoning for your own extortion.
> What do you get? You get to say “I have a paper.”
In academia you get much more. You get a token for promotion; outside of some extra-persnickety top schools, no one cares what your papers say, only that your metrics are appropriate for promotion. Your employer gets another faculty member that is "academic qualified," which impacts accreditation. And your employer's accreditation body gets another line in its database showing how its criteria are adopted by academe and driving the growth in research output.
We can (and probably do) agree that these are inappropriate and easily-gameable metrics, which come from taking historically reasonable criteria and applying them without considering that grifters will adapt to them. But as long as the system is unchanged (and it's unlikely to change at least in useful time), if you want to play the glass bead game, then you need to collect glass beads.
I do expect one change to the academic publishing industry: those $4000 will soon be non-returnable under any circumstances.
Umm...I just read the article in the Guardian you linked in Story Two. Down towards the bottom of the article, it gives as an example the effects of bad published research as being:
"The harm done by publishing poor or fabricated research is demonstrated by the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Early laboratory studies indicated it could be used to treat Covid-19 and it was hailed as a miracle drug. However, it was later found these studies showed clear evidence of fraud, and medical authorities have refused to back it as a treatment for Covid."
“The trouble was, ivermectin was used by anti-vaxxers to say: ‘We don’t need vaccination because we have this wonder drug,’” said Jack Wilkinson at Manchester University. “But many of the trials that underpinned those claims were not authentic.”
What??? Is this true? Is the whole "Ivermectin will help with Covid" thing a scam??? Has the FLCCC stop recommending it??
I was fascinated by the 8,000 papers being pulled by IEEE in 2010. According to a 2018 article in Science, ‘Most of the authors were based in China’. Not sure how to explain that, although there was a world expo held in Shanghai for 6 months in 2010 which may have generated more submissions.
‘To prevent future mass retractions, IEEE says it has formed a committee of staff and volunteer experts to serve as “gatekeepers” for conference materials and provide an additional level of quality control.’
After this Covid fiasco, it doesn't matter what "science" does or says. NO ONE is ever going to trust a single thing they say about anything anymore. I know I won't. The more "expert" they are, the more suspect they'll be.
Well...I still intend to use AI to write my entire PhD thesis...whenever I decide that I would even want to be called "Dr" by others who'd presume me to be VERY smart. Heck, I could even become an Ivy League president or something, right? Hope springs eternal...
The problem predates DIE. Publish or perish is the problem. over three decades ago I was dismayed by how many times I found the same numerical method rederived with slightly different packaging.
I'm DIEing to know what word or phrase was accidentally left off the penultimate paragraph in today's excellent article!
(here it is)
"In any case, less than 1% sure seems low to me. Especially since you and I, dear reader, have investigated hundreds of what are touted as the best papers, and we have found them wanting. Few were outright frauds, and few contained outright"
As a retired schoolteacher I can assure you children are no longer receiving a sound education either at home or the minimum security facilities that pass for schools now. It began with the civil rights act of 1965. Under the radar saying among teachers: if you're not a racist when you start your teaching career you will be by the time you retire.
Keep up the good work that you are doing. Science needs it badly!
Science (the process of investigation) needs to be returned to the lone,self-funded, non-conformists who publish for anyone to read and care not one jot for peer approval.
Read my three articles
I’ve laid waste to a few paradigms - hold onto your hat
Demand that SCIENCE! generate 2 to 4 papers per year for the holy tenure stole to be awarded and this is one of the things you get. Science just doesn't move that fast, but SCIENCE does.
You get what you pay for, Science Journals.
Or rather what you make THEM pay for.
Enjoy that fraud as seasoning for your own extortion.
> What do you get? You get to say “I have a paper.”
In academia you get much more. You get a token for promotion; outside of some extra-persnickety top schools, no one cares what your papers say, only that your metrics are appropriate for promotion. Your employer gets another faculty member that is "academic qualified," which impacts accreditation. And your employer's accreditation body gets another line in its database showing how its criteria are adopted by academe and driving the growth in research output.
We can (and probably do) agree that these are inappropriate and easily-gameable metrics, which come from taking historically reasonable criteria and applying them without considering that grifters will adapt to them. But as long as the system is unchanged (and it's unlikely to change at least in useful time), if you want to play the glass bead game, then you need to collect glass beads.
I do expect one change to the academic publishing industry: those $4000 will soon be non-returnable under any circumstances.
I expect the scientific journals will get old very quickly and replaced with models that favour everyone having casual access.
Scrutinisers becoming every day folk with an interest.
The COMMONS of sense/science must return.
Leaving experts to provide logical straight forward explanations. And when they can’t because it’s pure BS, paradigms fall.
Timely. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cureus-retracts-study-critiquing-covid-19-vaccine-censorship/
Umm...I just read the article in the Guardian you linked in Story Two. Down towards the bottom of the article, it gives as an example the effects of bad published research as being:
"The harm done by publishing poor or fabricated research is demonstrated by the anti-parasite drug ivermectin. Early laboratory studies indicated it could be used to treat Covid-19 and it was hailed as a miracle drug. However, it was later found these studies showed clear evidence of fraud, and medical authorities have refused to back it as a treatment for Covid."
“The trouble was, ivermectin was used by anti-vaxxers to say: ‘We don’t need vaccination because we have this wonder drug,’” said Jack Wilkinson at Manchester University. “But many of the trials that underpinned those claims were not authentic.”
What??? Is this true? Is the whole "Ivermectin will help with Covid" thing a scam??? Has the FLCCC stop recommending it??
I trust the science, it's the scientists that I question
I was fascinated by the 8,000 papers being pulled by IEEE in 2010. According to a 2018 article in Science, ‘Most of the authors were based in China’. Not sure how to explain that, although there was a world expo held in Shanghai for 6 months in 2010 which may have generated more submissions.
Link to the Science article here:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.362.6413.393
‘To prevent future mass retractions, IEEE says it has formed a committee of staff and volunteer experts to serve as “gatekeepers” for conference materials and provide an additional level of quality control.’
Thanks for sharing. I dropped my two-decade-long IEEE membership as it became increasingly clear the organization is a publication churning racket.
What comes next after peer review goes away (if ever it does)?
After this Covid fiasco, it doesn't matter what "science" does or says. NO ONE is ever going to trust a single thing they say about anything anymore. I know I won't. The more "expert" they are, the more suspect they'll be.
Well...I still intend to use AI to write my entire PhD thesis...whenever I decide that I would even want to be called "Dr" by others who'd presume me to be VERY smart. Heck, I could even become an Ivy League president or something, right? Hope springs eternal...
I guess people will have to remove the acronyms from their names before people start doctoring them.
PHD - Pretty Haughty Dood ( or Dame)
MD - Mild Dementia