The mistake is thinking this is a discovery. Even in STEM we understand the literature is heavily contaminated by bullshit. The buffoons here are the hoaxers who think we don’t understand this or this is surprising to anyone who understands academic publishing.pic.twitter.com/MZCjH0svga
-
-
We fully understand there are predatory publishers with low standards of peer review. We understand shoddy work gets done, not every PhD thesis is nobel-worthy. It’s not an excuse to dismiss entire fields - I could find you as much shitty biology in bogus pay for play journals.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Except that the journals these papers were published in are not predatory journals but first quartile journals with reasonably high impact factors... And that some reviewers gave very positive feedback of articles that are essentially devoid of any sense...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Yep, and I spent half my time in grad school refuting a paper published in Nature Medicine? So what? Impact factor is no protection from lazy peer review.
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Yep. And I blog about crappy papers in high impact journals all the time. Indeed, some high impact journals can be more prone to crappy papers because they try so hard to publish research on the bleeding edge, which more often turns out to be wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
Wasn't many of these fake article also rejected by journals they were submitted to? Seems like the authors want to downplay this. https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and
I think 6 of the 20 submitted were rejected. 6 or 7 were published, and the other ones were being peer-reviewed when the hoax was exposed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
For comparison, hoaxers have gotten over 120 computer-generated nonsense papers published in computer science. Would the authors of this present hoax reject computer science as hopelessly unscientific and plagued by ideology? I think not. https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 …
1 reply 7 retweets 13 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Conference preceedings are usually peer reviewed, just more sloppily.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Correct. For instance, at the @AACR annual meeting, pretty much any submitted abstract not accepted for a talk is accepted for a prayer presentation.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.