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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and
If these had been peer reviewed it would be another story.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Debunking Denialism Retweeted Debunking Denialism
I linked several other cases where papers were peer-reviewed. https://twitter.com/debunkdenialism/status/1048616888983584769 … So do you think anticancer research is bullshit as a field just because hoax papers about it has been published? I doubt you do, and that shows your bias.
Debunking Denialism added,
Debunking Denialism @debunkdenialismReplying to @MarkHoofnagle @conazole and 2 others>150 journals accepted fake paper about anticancer properties of a substance from lichens. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full … Three journals published a paper based on Rick and Morty. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3km5j8/scientist-published-papers-based-on-rick-and-morty-to-expose-predatory-academic-journals … Some journals publishes fake paper based on star wars. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2017/07/22/predatory-journals-star-wars-sting/ …1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @debunkdenialism @gorskon and
Fields that produce scientific results aren't bullshit, even if peer review sometimes fails. I'm not yet convinced that grievance studies even are science.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @clgood @debunkdenialism and
I do not find your parroting of James Lindsay's made up pejorative "grievance studies" to describe these fields as persuasive.
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @debunkdenialism and
That's OK. Twitter is all about short hand.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Even shorthand that deceives, apparently.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @debunkdenialism and
I wasn't being deceptive, and I hope you saw my next reply.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.