|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:07:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
I get the impression that you think it quite unusual if peer review does not address such things ? I think it's "par for the course". Papers routinely get through with no checking at all done ( or possible; data code and method not fully supplied in a Supplementary Information). If it sounds OK, that's often all they are looking for. |
The point to publishing a scientific paper is to present all the information needed for other people to critique the experiment and/or replicate it. If the methods are not "fully supplied," then it can't be replicated or criticized properly, and that would be a failure of peer review. You seem to be defending these bad practices, but instead I hope you would agree that while they might be common, they shouldn't be acceptable.
|
It is a huge failure, in a way, but mainly the failure is in the people who think it is what it is not. Many people even believe that everything is REPLICATED in peer review. Nothing like that at all.
What you describe, is what should be fixed, somehow sometime, but it is completely NORMAL, Dave.
Engineering papers might be thousands of pages. They get real more review, as it does matter if it is right, if it works or not.
Academic papers do not bother much with checking. Scientific academic papers in Nature, for instance, are just a few pages long and have passed review with glaring, glaring faults included.
I believe that every manuscript accepted should have code, method, intermediate steps, and all data (link to archive), supplied on the Supplementary Information Form. Most often it is NOT. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 19:12:51 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:20:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
What you describe, is what should be fixed, somehow sometime, but it is completeley NORMAL, Dave. |
Then it should be normal for papers like Bem's to be an embarrassment to the journal that chooses to publish them.
There is no legal or ethical obligation to do only "normal" amounts of peer review, is there? No. Therefore, journals that allow crappy articles onto their pages are choosing to let them through. "We do the same amount of review as most other journals" is a pathetic tu quoque argument, and should be thoroughly ridiculed with, "well, if those other journals jumped off a bridge...?"
Why would you want to let a journal off the hook for doing what's "normal" when it should be doing what's right? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:30:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
What you describe, is what should be fixed, somehow sometime, but it is completeley NORMAL, Dave. |
Then it should be normal for papers like Bem's to be an embarrassment to the journal that chooses to publish them.
There is no legal or ethical obligation to do only "normal" amounts of peer review, is there? No. Therefore, journals that allow crappy articles onto their pages are choosing to let them through. "We do the same amount of review as most other journals" is a pathetic tu quoque argument, and should be thoroughly ridiculed with, "well, if those other journals jumped off a bridge...?"
Why would you want to let a journal off the hook for doing what's "normal" when it should be doing what's right?
|
I think that most of these journals are privately owned , Sir.
My own thoughts about how to deal with the problem, concern government funded agencies.
The agencies which supply funding to the scientists at universities, are responsible for making sure it's all kosher, all procedures as written, to be followed.
The only real embarrassment here, should be justintime's, for trying put all that insane crap over on us, then trying to offer a false impression of what happened. |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 19:37:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 19:50:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
I think that most of these journals are privately owned , Sir. |
And that has relevance to what I said because...?| My own thoughts about how to deal with the problem, concern government funded agencies. |
So you would mandate a solution where possible. I think that journals that make such gaffes, public or private, should be seen by the scientific community as failing to maintain a reputation of high standards of publication, and so will be less likely to receive high-quality submissions in the first place.| The only real embarrassment here, should be justintime's, for trying put all that insane crap over on us, then trying to offer a false impression of what happened. |
Oh, there's plenty of embarrassment to go around. Bem should be embarrassed, the journal should be embarrassed, any serious parapsychologists should be embarrassed and justintime should be embarrassed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2011 : 20:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
I think that most of these journals are privately owned , Sir. |
And that has relevance to what I said because...? |
Because a distinction needed to be drawn, IMO.
For me, at least, I would not contemplate use of force against any private journal or scientist. I thought you would have no objection to that, and so simply pointing out the distinction between private and publicly funded research, would be enough.
| My own thoughts about how to deal with the problem, concern government funded agencies. |
So you would mandate a solution where possible. |
Absolutely. It's taxpayer money and it deserves respect. Enforced to the hilt.
I think that journals that make such gaffes, public or private, should be seen by the scientific community as failing to maintain a reputation of high standards of publication, and so will be less likely to receive high-quality submissions in the first place.
...there's plenty of embarrassment to go around. Bem should be embarrassed, the journal should be embarrassed, any serious parapsychologists should be embarrassed and justintime should be embarrassed.
|
True. Of them, only jit is here, though.
|
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/24/2011 20:14:03 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 00:27:08 [Permalink]
|
I cannot believe you guys are attacking pioneering research over one publication. There are a lot of overlapping disciplines in the field of neuroscience, neuropsychology and genetics. We just saw how difficult it is for ordinary people to even understand why there are white and pink flamingos. Now that should be embarrassing. To show the curiosity level of a 6 year old and then be befuddled with the answers. Now that is embarrassing.
There isn't much use for scientific journals if people cannot understand them. So what is the fuss about? Leave it to the pros. It took over 30 years for the scientific community to accept Mendel's genetics. They have their share of skeptics too. Now that is embarrassing.
Now someone thinks I should be embarrassed. Because I bring some optimism and fresh outlook to a very sorry sulking bunch of skeptics should not be cause for embarrassment.
Examines extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, promotes critical thinking, and ...Well if you guys want to take out the extraordinary, revolutionary and critical thinking......That too would be embarrassing. LoL.
|
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 07:35:54 [Permalink]
|
Anything that comes handy can be used by the untruthful.
|
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 07:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Anything that comes handy can be used by the untruthful.
|
I don't think you mean to say that raglan. Because the lies you face everyday is less painful, so much less painful than the truth you have to live with. Welcome!!! |
| Edited by - justintime on 09/26/2011 08:35:11 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 17:58:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Because a distinction needed to be drawn, IMO.
For me, at least, I would not contemplate use of force against any private journal or scientist. |
Is a boycott or a criticism a "use of force?" If not, then I wouldn't contemplate a use of force against anyone just because they published a wrong paper, either, but I would urge people to avoid publishing in that journal. If you think such "coercion" is force, then you've been using force against me in these forums.| I thought you would have no objection to that... |
I hadn't even considered it, it's so irrelevant to what we were discussing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 19:12:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Because a distinction needed to be drawn, IMO.
For me, at least, I would not contemplate use of force against any private journal or scientist. |
Is a boycott or a criticism a "use of force?" |
Not force as I meant it. I meant officially powered force. I would not endorse government or government funded force on private publications, to make them agree with one thing or another or to have quality control of a certain level.
To show patronage of better publications and not poorer ones, protesting, any number of things can be done, sure.
Choose for yourself if you want to read "The Enquirer". Sometimes it's got some correctish info before mainstream, sometimes it's only fit to burn.
If you think such "coercion" is force, then you've been using force against me in these forums.WTF
I thought you would have no objection to that... |
I hadn't even considered it, it's so irrelevant to what we were discussing.
|
WTF, how can the distinction between private and publically sponsored publications not be relevant to issues of control ?
| I hadn't even considered it, it's so irrelevant |
Fallacy much ?
CRUX..when it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 19:15:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:04:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Not force as I meant it. I meant officially powered force. I would not endorse government or government funded force on private publications, to make them agree with one thing or another or to have quality control of a certain level. |
Yeah, I never even considered any such thing, so I still don't know why you brought it up.| WTF, how can the distinction between private and publically sponsored publications not be relevant to issues of control ? |
I was talking about you personally letting a privately owned journal off the hook for publishing a very flawed article because its failure was a "normal" failure, according to you.
Did you think that when I said that a journal has no legal or ethical obligation to do more than the "normal" amount of peer review, I was suggesting that people write letters of protest to their Congresspeople?!| I hadn't even considered it, it's so irrelevant |
Fallacy much ? |
Please go ahead and name the fallacy you think I committed there. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
CRUX
BANNED
192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:19:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by CRUX
Not force as I meant it. I meant officially powered force. I would not endorse government or government funded force on private publications, to make them agree with one thing or another or to have quality control of a certain level. |
Yeah, I never even considered any such thing, so I still don't know why you brought it up. |
Because it's an important distinction wrt control issues. I told you that already, Dave. Things are different when the taxpayer is paying the bill. It's research that they pay for, on vital issues, often...and so deserve ( also by law ) that they get their due. Private companies on private funds..it's their business how they want to present themselves within the lawful manner. They take the blowback and they face many possible consumer responses.
| WTF, how can the distinction between private and publically sponsored publications not be relevant to issues of control ? |
I was talking about you personally letting a privately owned journal off the hook for publishing a very flawed article because its failure was a "normal" failure, according to you. |
You gave a totally bullshit misrepresentation, thanks.I did no such thing. Try another one, Dave. I find the fact that it is normal, is disgusting, maddening, and you, certainly, are falsely stating things.
That being the case, this dialogue is over.
CRUX..when it matters |
| Edited by - CRUX on 09/25/2011 20:29:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2011 : 20:33:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by CRUX
Because it's an important distinction wrt control issues. I told you that already, Dave. Things are different when the taxpayer is paying the bill. It's research that they pay for, on vital issues, often...and so deserve ( also by law ) that they get their due. Private companies on private funds..it's their business how they want to present themselves within the lawful manner. They take the blowback and they face many possible consumer responses. |
And we were talking about a private company, so why did you feel it relevant to talk about governmental control and "force?" I certainly never suggested that the journal be "forced" to do anything. I even said they weren't obligated to do more than they did. So why is the distinction between public and private companies relevant?| You gave a totally bullshit misrepresentation, thanks.I did no such thing. Try another one, Dave. |
So your response is just, "nuh-uh"?
No, the characterization I offered of your response to my saying that the Bem article was a failure of peer review was spot-on. Your response was nothing more than that it was a "normal" failure, and so we shouldn't be too hard on the journal. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 08:58:32 [Permalink]
|
Before we jump to conclusion about Bem's article and accept James Alcock debunking of it. No announcement of any retraction has been made by The Journal of personality and social psychology. The journal where Bems article is to be published.
"And, of course, the unwritten rule that failed studies — the ones that find no effects — are far less likely to be published than positive ones. What are the odds, for instance, that the journal would have published Dr. Bem’s study if it had come to the ho-hum conclusion that ESP still does not exist? "
Link to NY times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11esp.html |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2011 : 09:30:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
No announcement of any retraction has been made by The Journal of personality and social psychology. |
Seems like that'd also be considered "normal." There was a study on prayer which was deeply flawed, an author of which turned out to be a fraud and another author of which demanded his name be removed from the article, but the publishing journal stood by its decision to not retract the paper. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Be a Master of Apologetics: amaze your friends!
