HCAP will love this: Peer Review Ring Smashed

[tucker6]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/

Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clocker]

Well, they are all certainly each others peers.

As are all the global warming fan boys who review each others articles.

[hcap]

Yes, I saw the article written up in Slate and no, no papers in the Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC) that were retracted, had anything to do with AGW

Peer reviewed papers get retracted all the time although this was pretty bad. Should we dump the entire system and discount everything in peer review journals? No. (unless Fox news is willing to fill in until a total replacement is found) :rolleyes:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0044118

We found, 4,449 scholarly publications retracted from 1928–2011. Unlike Math, Physics, Engineering and Social Sciences, the percentages of retractions in Medicine, Life Science and Chemistry exceeded their percentages among Web of Science (WoS) records. Retractions due to alleged publishing misconduct (47%) outnumbered those due to alleged research misconduct (20%) or questionable data/interpretations (42%).

Conclusions

Retracted articles occur across the full spectrum of scholarly disciplines. Most retracted articles do not contain flawed data; and the authors of most retracted articles have not been accused of research misconduct. Despite recent increases, the proportion of published scholarly literature affected by retraction remains very small.

.................................................. ......

Meanwhile also in Slate. Have you seen the article on the worse online newspaper in the world? The Mail Online :lol: :lol:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/07/george_clooney_marriage_actor_rips_daily_mail_for_ amal_alamuddin_druze_story.html

[mostpost]

Tucker6 posts a story about one group in one minor discipline which abused the peer review process. Clocker pops up a decides that this means the entire global warming community is fraudulent. That is weird, even for Clocker. Kind of like thinking that everyone who walks into the bank is a bank robber.

[tucker6]

Tucker6 posts a story about one group in one minor discipline which abused the peer review process. Clocker pops up a decides that this means the entire global warming community is fraudulent. That is weird, even for Clocker. Kind of like thinking that everyone who walks into the bank is a bank robber.
Methinks you doth protest too much. I know it hits pretty close to home for you global warming fanboys.

[Clocker]

Methinks you doth protest too much. I know it hits pretty close to home for you global warming fanboys.

The fanboys have lots of righteous indignation and very little sense of humor or sarcasm.

[hcap]

Obviously the reason you AGW deniers are calling into question the entire peer review process (erroneously of course), is that you have absolutely no pot to piss in. Studies showing the number of deniers publishing peer review papers DENYING AGW are almost non existent :lol: :lol:
In 2012, James Powell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Powell) conducted a survey of scientific papers regarding the topic of anthropogenic global warming by searching Web of Science for scientific papers published from 1991 to 2012. He identified 13,950 papers, but only 24 which argued that humans were not the primary cause of global warming.[8][9] He updated his survey in 2014 to include studies published from November 12, 2012, to December 21, 2013, and identified only one study published during this time that argued that global warming was not caused by human activity.[10][11]
James Powell is not some wannabe Anthony Watts tv weatherman.

"An American geologist. He was the chairman of the geology department at Oberlin College from 1965 to 1973, and served as its provost from 1975 to 1981.[1] From 1983 to 1988, Powell was the president of Franklin and Marshall College.[2] He served as the president of Reed College from 1988 to 1991, after which he became the president of the Franklin Institute,[3][4] and has also served on the National Science Board for 12 years. He was formerly the director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History,[2] and is currently the executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium.[5] The minor planet 9739 Powell, discovered by C. S. Shoemaker in 1987, is named after him."