‘STING OPERATION’: THE STUNNING PERCENTAGE OF SCIENCE JOURNALS THAT ACCEPTED A COMPLETELY BOGUS STUDY

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Deleted member 472633, Oct 4, 2013.

  1. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/04/sting-operation-the-stunning-percentage-of-science-journals-that-accepted-a-completely-bogus-study/
     
    What it seems to come down to is profit.
    “But even when editors and bank accounts are in the developing world, the company that ultimately reaps the profits may be based in the United States or Europe. In some cases, academic publishing powerhouses sit at the top of the chain,” Bohannan wrote.
    Another interesting find was that an open-access journal that Bohannan said is among the many that have been “criticized for poor quality control” actually had the “most rigorous peer review of all.” The journal PLOS One, for example, was the only one pointing out some of the study's ethical issues. This journal rejected the fictitious paper due to poor scientific quality.
    </blockquote> 

     
  2. Between this and the global warming thread, you are really covering all the bases....
     
    Anti-Science
     
    Anti-science proponents often attack science through:
     
    ***What is the Oregon Petition?  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
     
     
     
  3. #3 chiefton8, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2013
    So 95% of journals ultimately rejected the bogus article. The remaining 5% fucked up, and are probably journals nobody ever cites and one of them is even responsibly shutting down because of this. The one journal the OP did mention that did accept the article I can't even find an impact factor score for, which means it's as low as you can get and nobody ever cites it nor relies on anything published from those journals.
     
    Sorry James, but it looks like your anti-science propaganda is failing yet again. I assure you from personal experience the peer review process is alive and well (but not always perfect), and it sure as hell beats your memes and online petitions to separate scientific fact from fiction. You are sounding like a desperate creationist.
     
  4. #4 Penelope420, Oct 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2013
     
    This is a great example of anti-science trickery.  They throw around a lot of big numbers.... 157 missed the "flaws", 60% of 255 didn't undergo peer review.  Wow.... that does sound shocking!
     
    But ultimately, only sixteen accepted it.   That's not a "stunning percentage". 
     
    This is an example of a headline twisting the facts.  Liberal and conservative media are both guilty of completely contorting science and facts to present a certain view point, which is why no matter where you stand politically, it's important to be able to separate science and facts from opinion and distinguish when you are being bullshitted. 
     
    What do you have to gain by trying to discredit science?  How do you prove a scientific theory or fact wrong, without science?  But if science is bullshit, then what? 
     
  5. thank you for reading things
     
  6. Thank YOU for understanding that i lean towards facts, not ideology.
     
  7. Liar ;)
     

Share This Page