The Perceptivity of the Pseudonymic Integrity of the Peer Review Process
There seems to be some misconstrued perception of the intrinsic value of the peer review process, prepublication or otherwise. In fact, peer review is not a requirement for publication under any circumstances. It is fascinating to observe people with presumptive and uninformed notions tumble all over themselves, and trip themselves up, over the preposterous notion that peer review is a requirement for validity or for publication.
In an effort to clearly demonstrate the lack of real-world, hard-nosed value of the peer review process, two authors engaged themselves in the time and effort required to produce an article for prepublication peer review.
If you take the time to read their article, which was published after peer review, you begin to understand why that phrase conjures up a vision of two guys at a urinal discussing football scores while they gaze at the tiles on the walls instead of engaging in penis measuring.
The article to which I refer was titled ‘The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct’. Their report on the valueless process of peer review is at this link.
These two post-doctoral operatives were kind enough to archive a pdf of the article itself, for your enjoyment.
http://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf
Note that the entire article was, in their words, ‘stuffed full of jargon’, nonsense, pejorative slang for genitals, and so-called ‘red flag phrases’, which was essentially a collection of contemporary buzzwords and vocabulary quickly and easily recognized for their alleged ‘trigger-reactive’ misusage. They used every possible means of distortionate vocabulary available in the English language to achieve their goal. Some examples include ‘toxic hypermasculinity’, ‘man-spreading – akin to raping the environment’, etc.
The abstract for the hoax paper is as follows:
Abstract: Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity. Through detailed poststructuralist discursive criticism and the example of climate change, this paper will challenge the prevailing and damaging social trope that penises are best understood as the male sexual organ and reassign it a more fitting role as a type of masculine performance.
It was a hoax, created with the sole intent to expose the idiocy embedded in the misperception that peer review adds true value to publication.
Since peer review is a prepublication courtesy, not a requirement, it is plain to anyone with a working brain that the process of peer review has acquired the precise value of my previous example: two guys chatting each other up at the urinal.
This is a prime example of the lack of value of so-called peer review. Where it should have some conscious value as a feedback mechanism, it is, instead a joke on the ignorant and uninformed twits who are now in a feeding frenzy over the ‘not peer-reviewed’ status of a study on wage levels and resultant economic impacts in the Seattle, WA, area.
Obviously, in the title to this article, I intentionally pursued the use of polysyllabics, whether or not they were correctly employed, simply as a means of pressing home the point, that peer review is becoming overrated, in many instances being nothing more than a brief perusal of a submitted paper. Some people are easily impressed
Maybe it would have more value if peer review was a dick-measuring contest.
Category: "Teh Stoopid"
SWORD FIGHT!!!!
/lol
Cockfighting is illegal in most states, ChipNASA.
Oh, wait . . . “Nevermind”.
(smile)
I am sincerely hoping that some overweening pompous ass may appear and pontificate at great length upon my proposal. That assumes, of course, that he rises before nightfall.
Babbles McButthead THINKS he knows everything and as long as he does he is incapable of truly learning any lessons in life. He sits in classroom after classroom swallowing whatever drivel his profs feed him and IMHO he is brainwashed into a total mental oblivion by himself and UC Berzerkely.
That, or he’s just a conceited twit with a brain the size of a sunflower seed.
You come here sayin all them fancy words, with your high falutin ways.
“I see your Schwartz is as big as mine…” Dark Helmet
Ludicrous speed, GO!!!
NSFW – Blazing Saddle clip:
Never, ever, have anything in your mouth when reading TAH, especially if Ex-PH2 is the author of the article.
I bow to your kind words, Graybeard.
Just the facts, Ma’am.
giggity?
What…the HELL did I just read?
Im glad even the authors acknowledged they didn’t know what they were writing. It SOUNDS good though.
It is a hoax – full of meaningless jargon, which was published to troll the SJWs and reveal just how stupid they are.
Oh, I gathered it was a hoax. I just find it hilarious that it got so many ‘good reviews’ before it was published.
Let’s just be clear: peer review has the potential to screen specious material from publication. But it depends on the integrity of the journal and its reviewers. This was published in a no-name, social sciences journal. We already know that outside the hard sciences, one can claim and get away with anything. Peer review is most useful and desirable in the hard sciences, where real data and real scientific thinking has to be used. Yes, there has been some fraud in the hard sciences over the years; but for the most part peer review has been useful there.
Well, Medic09, from the reports I’ve been reading, the problem exists in the “hard sciences” as well, when the article is about an esoteric sub-specialty that few can understand. The author is asked to submit a list of names of people who are willing to do the peer-review – because the editors themselves do not have the expertise. It is easy for an unscrupulous author to submit buddies who will give a good review in a tit-for-tat exchange of favors.
Think of the fall-out from the “vaccines contribute to autism” pseudo-study done by the physician in England, if I recall, which was later shown to be falsified even though “peer reviewed”.
I’m sure other instances could be found – such as the study that found RoundUp to be a cancer risk – when the research by one of the lead scientists on the board that reached that conclusion shows that it is not.
In the “publish or perish” world of research, where research money is dependent upon getting the attention of those controlling the purse strings, the incentive to cheat is enormous.
Yep. See the first link in my comment below. The peer review system can indeed be gamed – and has been, resulting in at least 250+ “peer reviewed” published articles having been retracted.
I think I was typing this while you were posting, Hondo.
Great minds…
I already noted in my comment that there has been some fraud, even in the hard sciences. Compared to the amount of research done and published, it seems to be quite small. There also isn’t much better way to attempt to screen out the outrageous before it reaches print. Are “the reports you’ve been reading” news reports, or professional reports? And are you sometimes conflating the word “study” with the notion “story”. Another part of the problem is undiscerning readers taking a statement or report to mean much more than it says. They take “damages cells in laboratories” to be a claim that it’s deadly to humans. Scientists read that and see “has risks that need to be considered and/or further investigated.” I run into the misreading problem quite a bit. As for Roundup in particular, since you brought it up, there seems to be pretty well-founded concern that it may, indeed, be risky. The main ingredient is NOT the problem. The total mix of active and inert ingredients may be a problem. Since it can’t be tested on human subjects, we can’t know for sure; but the reported research would raise a scientist’s interest in the possible risks. Of course, the claim is strongly disputed – by the manufacterer. What was Graybeards comment about purse strings? Bottom line: show me a better system for critquing the hard sciences than replication and peer review.
lets have a central tribunal consisting of Bill Nye, Katy Perry and Dr. Oz.
Don’t forget Matt Damon.
And Kim Kardashian.
Don’t forget bimbo Jenny McCarthy and her “vast knowledge” about autism…
Completely on a different (Kind of similar) but more amusing tangent,
For nearly two decades, a group of Swedish scientists have been amusing one another by seeing who can conceal the most Bob Dylan lyrics in their scholarly articles before retirement. The competition dates back to a scientific paper about farts titled, “Nitric Oxide and Inflammation: The Answer Is Blowing in the Wind,” The Local reports (via Gawker). The authors of the paper, John Jundberg and Eddie Weitzberg – both professors at Stocklholm’s Karolinska Institute – later went on to sneak “the times, they are a-changing” into an article.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/swedish-scientists-hide-bob-dylan-lyrics-in-scholarly-articles-20140929
I’m impressed by their creativity.
well, you don’t need to be a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
I’m thinking the whole thing blows…
To be serious for a moment: there’s another reason not to regard “peer-reviewed” articles as infallible. Sometimes those “peer-reviewed” articles . . . really aren’t.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330
Academia’s “publish or perish” imperative has also apparently spawned a slew of bogus “academic journals” that publish “peer reviewed” stuff with at best a marginal review – if that. (The title of one example cited in this Slate article is freaking hilarious – as is the article itself. Warning – the article is NSFW or around prudes, small children, or clergy.)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/11/24/bogus_academic_journal_accepts_paper_that_reads_get_me_off_your_fucking.html
Bottom line: when it comes to published academic work, you not only need to read the “peer reviewed” article. You need to know something about the field – as well as about the publication in which it appeared. Otherwise . . . “Caveat Emptor.”
Your last paragraph is very true.
In straight academia it (peer review) can be a joke. People will protect a field that they themselves may be involved in or exploring as a negative or questionable review could impact their own studies and of course, funding in their own venues.
It medical research (which involves levels of academia) it can be critical to weed out bad concepts, data and ultimately attempts by those just individuals or institutions looking to maintain tenure or funding.
Yes, and if you read Sokol’s original submission, he produced his 1994 article with the sole intention of proving that the publication he submitted it to had an inappropriate political bias. He knew that, and used it to prove that anything written with a leftist bias in any field, including his (quantum physics) could be published by that particular journal.
As you indicate, these things still happen now, which is indicative of an inappropriate bias.
His paper is available online to read.
I enjoy yanking these chains, Hondo!
But did you enjoy the Slate article and what it found? (smile)
Yes, and I do remember that article she refers to, when it was originally released. Fell of my chair, laughing about it.
And she’s right: it isn’t just dog-eat-dog, it’s which dog is the wolf and which the coyote.
Love that peer-reviewed article Slate had.
I remember reading that NEJM article before. Just couldn’t bring it up in my mind where I’d read it.
Thanks, Hondo. Just let me know if you need me to peer-review your next professional article.
Hondo’s “bottom line” is entirely correct. It has always been that way. Professionals with integrity have always claimed that. The problem is that any half-literate person thinks they can read research, and competently understand what they are reading with no training in the specific field or in research and theoretical methodologies.
Sure, there are some problems with peer review… but comparing Cogent Social Sciences, the journal in which it was published, and one which doesn’t have an impact factor -a measure of the reputability and value of a journal- to, say, publishing in Science or Nature is like comparing the never-served-a-day beer-bellied guy with a SEAL Sniper / CIA SAD hat who claims to be a secret-squirrel type with an actual operator. Or, for that matter, comparing social science publications with, say, those in the physical sciences.
The fact that this nonsense is published does not diminish the general quality of peer-reviewed science any more than that beer-bellied guy diminishes the capabilities of our actual armed forces.
The bigger issue in science right now is reproducibility, especially in medical journals, and this stems from the publish-or-perish mindset where only ‘novel’ results get through, and people crank out papers with questionable data. That’s a systemic issue of funding, time and, yes, the review process, but to borrow from Churchill, “Peer-review is the worst form of academic review. Except for all the others.”
Playing with Churchill myself: doesn’t the government we know and love as “the NORKs” call itself “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”?
To steal from a possibly-apocryphal story about Lincoln: calling an paper a peer-reviewed paper does not make it peer-reviewed.
Yes, that’s it in a nutshell – calling some of these publications ‘peer reviewed journals’ (or papers, as you pointed out) is as accurate as calling a three-legged geriatric chihuahua a vicious guard dog.
But on occasion, even peer-reviewed articles in well-respected publications turn out to be crap as well. Google “Lancet Wakefield autism vaccine” for perhaps the most famous example.
Read the Slate article, LC. What the author says is much more pertinent and relevant than your protestations.
I disagree. The Slate article is focused on bogus academic journals, which while they may fool a lay audience and, at the risk of repetition, news reporters, are generally ignored at the forefront of research. Conflating pay-for-publish in bogus journals with actual peer review in reputable journals is like comparing ‘MSGT’ Soup Sandwich[1] with GEN Mattis because, hey, they both wear uniforms.
If you want to talk about peer review problems, you don’t focus on the bogus journals, you focus on the reputable ones and the real problems they face. Which are primarily a lack of reproducibility and a preference for ‘novel’ results. Expertise amongst reviewers is a possible third issue, depending on the field. But it’s still a better system than anything else we’ve come up with.
[1] In case people forgot who Soup Sandwich was: http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=24149
Yeah had a randomly generated article found its way into NEJM, JAMA, Nature etc, that would have been more impressive…and sad
Wakefield’s bogus 1998 “vaccines cause autism” study was published in Lancet. It was peer reviewed.
It was withdrawn in 2011 after it was determined that Wakefield had falsified or misrepresented all of the patient histories used in the study. Wakefield also lost his medical license.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html
Yes, but the authors deliberately falsified their research and used other unsound methods.
If I wanted to prove that pigs could fly, I could falsify thousands of data sets showing how X out of Y pigs were able to achieve heavier than air flight, complete with photoshopped images and fake pig names. Freshman Prob Stat students do this all the time with the surveys they ‘conduct’ as part of their final project.
Flat out lying and making up research data is not a problem with the peer review process. In fact, researchers with opposing theories and evidence will often publish their findings to counter.
Please read my 3rd comment below dealing with bogus articles published – and later retracted – by IEEE and Springer.
My point isn’t that the academic peer review process is worthless – as I explicitly state below, it isn’t. Rather, my point is that neither the peer review process nor publication in a prestigious scientific journal is any guarantee that a particular article will be accurate.
The peer review process is not infallible, even when it’s done correctly (and it often is not). No matter how reputable the publication, everyone occasionally gets “had”. Unquestioningly accepting a peer-reviewed study as “scientific Gospel” simply because it has been peer-reviewed and appears in a reputable journal is not simply mentally lazy – these days, it’s also dangerous.
I agree- but skepticism is (or at least used to be) a hallmark of actual science.
Peer review doesn’t always ensure that a study is scientific Gospel (interesting metaphor), but don’t you think that lack of peer review is more suspect?
Not really. When the Editor-in-Chief of Lancet (who’d have the experience in evaluating articles to be credible) raised questions about the accuracy of roughly 50% of published work, most if not all of which has presumably been peer-reviewed, that means you’re down to coin-toss odds with peer-reviewed articles. That in turn means it’s “Caveat Emptor” time – and you need to scrutinize even peer-reviewed articles closely before buying their conclusions. You’d need to do that with non-peer-reviewed articles anyway.
“Publish or perish”, and the resulting pollution of academic literature with pay-for-publish and/or gamed/scammed “peer reviewed” articles it caused, has done a great disservice to all. IMO the net effect has been to raise the “noise level” in academic publications by dramatically raising the amount of material to be reviewed, thus lowering the average quality of review. It’s also made it easier for those who want to to “game the system” – by choosing a journal with less rigorous review standards, faking reviews, or using a “pay for pub” publication in order to publish work not worthy of publication.
Yeah, the latter two (fake reviews and pay for pub) are ethically questionable bordering on outright fraud. But when a group of people are facing potential “career death”, human nature says some will opt for the dishonest way to continue said career.
Not randomly generated, but nonetheless bogus – and published by JAMA.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2001/08/jama-fell-fake-essay
I abandoned JAMA years ago they are so political these days it’s nauseating. Point taken nonetheless.
And if Lancet’s Editor-in-Chief is to be believed, the problem is serious enough that he questions roughly half of current published articles (presumably in the medical field, which is his area of expertise) regarding their accuracy and/or conclusions. The longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal also has made similar statements.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/16/editor-in-chief-of-worlds-best-known-medical-journal-half-of-all-the-literature-is-false/
And if that does not scare you, boys and girls, then you are not thinking it through.
Enough people believed Wakefield that he has endangered thousands of lives – including those of my grandchildren, unfortunately.
Wakefield lost his license over that.
There are still and always will be throngs of zombies following Wakefield even after his retraction and disciplniary action as well as Dr. Oz, Dr. Mercola, Gwyneth Paltrow etc.
Papers are supposed to inspire thought and validity doesn’t lie in publication exclusively. Peer review isn’t perfect but it’s darn sure better than not having peer review.
Agreed.
I do not think that Wakefield was punished enough. As the source of the vaccine scare, he has damaged the health and lives of a large number of children. Mere loss of medical license is not enough, IMHO.
My intent here isn’t to pick on medicine. The problem extends across all academic disciplines.
The IEEE was also burned badly – back in 2014, they had to retract more than 100 randomly-generated and bogus articles they’d published between 2008 and 2013. And in the profession of electrical/electronics engineering, IEEE is one of the most respected publishers (if not THE most respected publisher) of technical articles in the world.
https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
Springer was also similarly burned, having to retract 16 articles. Springer’s reputation is close or equal to that of the IEEE regarding publication quality.
I’m not saying that academic peer review is worthless; it isn’t. But as these examples demonstrate, neither having undergone peer review nor publication in a prestigious journal is a guarantee that a given article isn’t bunk.
True enough.
Educating people of that fact, rather than having them worship at the altar of authoritarian scientism, is difficult.
The great flaw of peer review is that it relies upon the concept that there will be great minds with different perspectives, experimental results, and conclusions.
In the post-modern era of “consensus”, the very concept falls apart. One must not, ever, buck the “consensus”. Therefore, peer review becomes a self licking ice cream cone.
This is why no matter the reputation of the journal, readers must always look for independent verification or replication on their own.
“his is why no matter the reputation of the journal, readers must always look for independent verification or replication on their own.”
Or also get off your duff and learn how stats work and how to check methodology instead of simply looking for other people’s interpretations.
Not being able to look at the results objectively generally means people will instead gravitate towards the opinion that most reinforces their own.
It’s basic neurophysiology.Finding reinforcement of our own assumptions/conclusions, especially against dissenting opinions, activates the reward system in the brain flooding us with feel good hormones. It doesn’t in anyway mean we are correct.
The herd mentality is precisely the point of Sokal’s 1994 article as well as the ‘Conceptual Penis’ article.
One of the most difficult skills to master is the recognition of our own biases, assumptions, and conclusions and questioning of those in a self-disciplined manner. Especially in those areas where we have some level of expertise.
You all might be interested in this, “Rene Girard and Mimetic Theory,” http://www.imitatio.org/brief-intro/
That’s more true in the social sciences than in the physical ones, I think. I’ll wade into a controversial topic here, but one of my biggest issues with the Left when it comes to science is that they like to portray a consensus, like the one on climate change, as the ‘end all’ to any disagreement. Yet the reality is if you were to get five different climate scientists in the room and ask them what the biggest issues in modeling climate are, you’d get twelve different answers. There’s a lot of disagreement, and a lot of room for scientific investigation, and plenty of uncertainty about the details.
To switch to a political context, it’d be like how there’s a consensus amongst Republican congressman that the current healthcare system isn’t working and needs change. But talk to them individually and you’re not going to find consensus in what needs changing.
Backing up to peer review, I don’t think it expects different perspectives, just a secondary set of eyes. But without funding for reviewers to do the same exact experiments, and potentially achieve different results, it can come up short. I’ve known a few scientists, though, and never met one who, when assigned to review a paper, shrugged and said, “Does it reach the same consensus? If so, then publish it.” The devil, as usual, is in the details, where little consensus exists.
This coming from the klowne that still believe the sky is falling as prophesied by the original fake hockey stick peer reviewed study and the resultant money grab by algore that has turned him into a billionaire all based on a lie.
Your belief in the whole global warming/cooling/climate change is the same thing that the Inca’s used to sacrifice virgins for to appease the God’s so that it would start raining again…
Mankind has been saying the world is going to end since Adam got tossed from the Garden of Eden and became afraid during the first Lunar/Solar eclipse…
So fuck of and fuck you larsy-boi, your shit stinks worse than anyone else’s here…
I’m not quite sure where to even begin here. Maybe, for starters, I’ll point out that I’m not Lars. Then, maybe, I’ll point out that one can understand the climate is changing and think human activity has played a role without thinking the sky is falling – in fact, if you want to get into the details, I could even give you examples of how small changes in aerosol emissions result in large differences in projected cooling temperatures. To me, that implies a higher degree of geoengineering capabilities than some of the more dire projections indicate.
Oh, I could also point out, since this topic if about scientific journals, that papers on the science rarely say, “Death! Chaos! The earth is ending!”, rather they say things like, “Surface tension lowering caused by organic surfactants, which diminishes the Kelvin effect, is expected to be negated by a concomitant reduction in the Raoult effect, driven by the displacement of surfactant molecules from the droplet bulk to the droplet–vapour interface.”[1]. And that relates to climate change in that cloud and particulate formation is pretty fucking relevant to solar energy absorption, and thus overall temperatures. But it seems you disagree with all that, so I’ll await your opposing theory and model?
One can argue, fairly well, that various projections are inaccurate for a multitude of reasons. And one can argue, as I reference above, that all the dire predictions of inescapable change are questionable in light of how sensitive the models are to minor changes in things like various albedos or particulate densities… but to look at all the data, all the math, and conclude that it’s all made up is woefully ignorant.
I wish I understood this insane over-reaction to the data. Especially without even looking at it, in full. And, again, not Lars.
[1] Just picked one from the webpage: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v546/n7660/full/nature22806.html
“but comparing Cogent Social Sciences, the journal in which it was published, and one which doesn’t have an impact factor -a measure of the reputability and value of a journal- to, say, publishing in Science or Nature is like comparing…”
From the Article:
“On the other hand, no one is arguing, nor has any reason to argue, that respectable journals like Nature and countless others have adopted a peer-review process that is fundamentally flawed or in any meaningful way corrupt. Much of the peer-review system remains the gold-standard for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem lies within a nebula of marginal journals, predatory pay-to-publish journals, and, possibly to some degree, open-access journals—although it may largely be discipline-specific, as we had originally hoped to discover.”
What I think is truly the problem with these, if I may, pseudo-peer-reviewed articles is that they are accepted prima facie by the “science” and “health” news outlets and summary conclusions by the science/health news-writers are then broadcast to all an sundry.
So much for “the science is settled” arguments.
News outlets often thrive on anecdotal evidence. They embrace anyone that reinforces their agenda without burdening them with proof of validity.
In Nature Magazine for example, it’s not so much the articles published I would criticize as much as the articles you won’t see there.
Good luck getting an article published that questions anthropogenic climate change. In that case, it’s not the peer review that is the problem per se, it’s the reluctance to address research that doesn’t walk a certain line.
Ive seen the same with National Geographic as well.
I’ve lost all respect for National Geographic.
Reminds me of a game myself and another NCO play with NCOERs. We endeavor to get the word erection into every single one we write. For example, “SGT so and so’s efforts were instrumental in the proper erection of the field hospital during XYZ”. We’re tracking a minimum of 30 approved by HRC at this time after being reviewed by a CSM
Anyone ever tell you the history of “Fun, Travel, and Adventure”? A truly great story. (And, like all truly great stories – who knows if there is any truth to it?)
Only 30? Oh, you can do better than that!
And Ex-PH2 is, again, involved in the erection of the creativity challenge.
I try to do a thorough job of it.
Don’t think twice, it’s alright.
This may very well be the most intriguing headline I have ever seen.
Ex-PH2 I am impressed.
Why, thank you! I wasn’t sure if there was enough gobbledygookishness to it.
Plenty of alliteration, too.
I that that awhile ago and it’s still hilarious. In the cases often highlighted though it’s not the peer review process but rather the lack of it that is often the problem. This is the same as any effective procedure that is ineffective when simply not followed.
There are actually publication for pieces that are dubious, because the need exists for those publications. Doctoral programs usually require publication…the one I’m in for example does.
Unfortunately, some students will opt for these when they can, through a university that isn’t diligent enough to put a thumb in the eye when needed to stop such nonsense.
What it doesn’t mean is that peer review is universally worthless. Lazy people that can’t understand statistics and don’t have the drive to learn statistical procedure do enjoy making such statements, because it’s the path of least resistance and requires no proof on their part.
peer review is only one tactic in validity…reproducibility is another important factor…remember learning the scientific method in grammar school kids? No, probably not.
haters gonna hate…those of us living in pursuit of truth to improve human lives will endeavor, regardless.
No, peer review is not universally worthless, but as the author of the Slate article demonstrates, in almost every instance the ‘publish or perish’ mindset is the driving force, which generates desperation and an ‘at any cost’ attitude.
true, especially since that guy reinforces your opinion….mmmmm….feel the dopamine.
In an environment where our news comes from editorial speculation and “unnamed sources” who are legitimate only because they repeat that which we want to be true rather then the actual facts, who is surprised when that mindset is employed in the social science community?
Nothing surprises me any more.
Even if Lars started to write sense?
Glad I was not in the process of imbibing hot liquids, Graybeard!
You’re welcome.
You keep using an oxymoron, ‘social sciences’. If it ain’t mathematically verifiable and repeatable, it’ not science, it’s tribal knowledge dressed up for a date.
The excuse is that without the label ‘social science’, there is no justification for funding research in that field. Attaching the term ‘science’ to ‘social’ validates its importance.
Social Sciences:
Environmental Studies
Anthropology
Area studies
Business studies
Civics
Communication studies
Criminology
Demography
Development studies
Economics
Education
Geography
History
Industrial relations
Information science
Law
Library science
Linguistics
Media studies
Political science
Psychology
Public administration
Sociology
Social work
Sustainable Development
So, nothing quantifiable in these fields, eh?
Pray tell me, Thou Fount of All Wisdom, how history is considered a science when it is deemed to be in the Humanities? Likewise, linguistics is embedded in and a part of philology, which, again, places it in the Humanities.
Do you prefer wine or beer?
Yeah, because there’s no overlap in subjects or subdivisions within broad categories….and while quibbling taxonomy my actual question goes unanswered.
status quo
I prefer whiskey, but free booze is free booze.
Oh, you wanted something more direct. Nope. Some of those are quite badly misplaced and belong in the Humanities, as I already indicated.
Geography, for instance, may use the various sciences as a means of determining accuracy, e.g., surveyor’s equipment, watch, compass and navigation reports, but as it is defined as ‘study of places’, not as geographology.
I view the labeling of Every Thing with the nominative ‘science’ as a means of justifying pseudo-science for the purpose of securing funding.
But that’s just me.
P.S. Love you, too.
you’re just ornery…I like that.:)
I think it could be a worthwhile project to do an analysis of the flaws in the peer review/publishing process, as a means of clearly demonstrating that they do exist, and that the slack response and lack of questioning results, as in Wakefield’s bogus vaccine/autism study, can cause real harm to the populace in general.
Whooping cough is on the loose in the general population again, as are mumps and measles. It’s the valid harm done by someone like Wakefield that concerns me. What’s next? Polio epidemics again? Typhoid? Diphtheria? I got all those shots in grade school, high school and RTC(W).
Now the CDC says the smallpox vax fades in five years after the first inoculation (toddler) and somewhat longer after the second (boot camp). I got an e-mail from them about it.
Before you say ‘not loose in the wild’, the pox can find its way out the door by accident.
TB was off the horizon, too. Now it’s back.
It’s a dangerous world. I’d like to survive it.
“I think it could be a worthwhile project to do an analysis of the flaws in the peer review/publishing process..”
Who would be qualified to do that sort of research?
Oh, that could be Hondo or Jonn or IDC_SARC, but certainly not some lackadaisical, ungrammatical, doobie-sucking student in LaLaLand.
Here we go. In this article, the analysis of Kurt Vonnegut’s written work, both by himself and by others, was through the use of scientific methodology in an attempt to discover how many basic plots there are in fiction.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/jul/13/three-six-or-36-how-many-basic-plots-are-there-in-all-stories-ever-written
The question raised by Vonnegut addressed his attempts to define the deep narrative in storytelling, which is as old as the human race. According to Booker, there are 7 basic plots. Vonnegut found 6 basic plots. Earlier, Foster-Harris described 3 basic plots. Using computer analysis of literature preserved by Project Gutenberg, 36 plots were brought to light. The number depends on the researcher and method used.
Since fiction/literature, whether ancient traditional forms such as bardic lore (Homer) or modern narratives (all genres), or poetry (Frost, Sandburg) is part and parcel of the social narrative of a civilization, it falls under the heading of Humanities, even while using the scientific method to analyze it for something as simple as the number of narrative plots available for use.
While both Linguistics and Library Science can be applied
to ensure the preservation of these narratives, they are still part of Humanities.
I have several degrees in these fields.
Okay, but what do you do with them now?
He unravels every riddle,
from any individ’l,
in trouble or in pain
And with the thoughts that he’s thinkin’,
he can be another Lincoln…
Drink beer.
“They say alcohol is man’s worst enemy, but the Bible says ‘Love your Enemy ‘.” – Frank Sinatra
David, some parts of social sciences are verifiable and repeatable.
I still classify them as “soft sciences” rather than “hard sciences”, but they do produce verifiable and repeatable experiments.
I’m not sure whether the “mathematically” quantifier is a prerequisite for you to consider something “scientific” and, if so, what degree of precision you would require before something was considered “mathematically verifiable”. Is observational verification not acceptable in your view? I’m really not sure what you are attempting to convey there.
I was referring to squishy areas like sociology… quantifiable bits like geography, for instance, I would regard as science. To borrow a phrase – if a ‘science’ has no hard data and every expert is contradicted by another expert who thinks the first is a lying scam artist – I have a very hard time accepting its conclusions as more than described coincidences. YMMV.
With you on that one, friend.
Sociology or psychology are both about as firm as slime mold.
Oh no, not slime in the ice machines!!! (Know you may be the only one here who gets that…)
OK, now you got me laughing out loud at work.
I actually saw MZ in person when I was working in a pizza joint in college. He came in after giving some college group a presentation.
He seemed to be a really likable guy – knowing he was overacting but not buying his own stuff.
The way anecdotal pieces weave their way word for word across innumerable articles is ridiculous. On any day if you look at a topic response (opiates, gender, marijuana use…whatever) and then seek other author’s opinion it invariably contains an introduction and summation and in between the same basic wordings and interpretations of every other article from like minded individuals. They don’t even try to put any original thought into the concept. They just repackage the same anecdote and put their name on it.
I was reading an article the other day and the author provided citations, but every reference on the list was a link to just another news article with the same buzzwords and no quantification/qualification or methodology. SMH
Trying to teach high school students what counts as scientific research has been difficult. Finding something that is more than regurgitated opinion, with good methodology yet something they can understand without needing to have passed Calc II to understand more than 1/2 the paper, is somewhat difficult.
Let us remember what “peer” means:
a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and/or social status.
Peer is -not- the same as “subject matter expert”.
If the brand-new 2LT produces an operations order for an actual attack, and you are in his platoon, do you want that Op Order “peer reviewed” by a gaggle of new 2LTs, or by the company’s crusty NCOs and maybe the XO and company commander?
Where I work, when we publish a project plan or major change plan, the “peer review” is usually for typos and readability. The Subject Matter Experts review is where the folks who have proven their mettle tear your marvelous creation to bits and help reassemble something workable and minimally disruptive.
Who are the “peers” of a closed-minded pseudo-educated nincompoop?
Are you entirely positive that ‘peer’ does not refer to urinals and football scores?
“Who are the “peers” of a closed-minded pseudo-educated nincompoop?”
Lars and Joe come to mind.
Is there a real difference?
Let us remember what “peer” means:
No, that’s just your definition if it in your world. Where I work we call what you’re describing proof reading.
Peer review in journals and science in general is not the same as proof reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
start here if you want to see the difference between proof reading and peer review.
??
When I want my ideas kicked around for conceptual or execution flaws, I try to look for someone above my pay grade and/or experience.
Then when on social media perhaps a “please don’t discuss what I write” disclaimer would be appropriate.
OK. I am definitely off the cliff here. Sometimes my writing is way off my speaking.
You are -way- above my pay grade and experience on the topic of academia and the paper process therein. (And others…) Thus your input useful. The above wasn’t snark at you, just very poorly put.
If I hand something I wrote on my job to the nearest skill set-equivalent, I get “no comma here” “misspelled word” (lots of those) and -sometimes- a subject matter point or two.
I go up the ladder, I learn -lots- that I didn’t realize I didn’t know. (Like here. Don’t know enough to make intelligent conversation, apparently).
Dammit. I actually realized the meaning you were conveying right about the time I hit post. Of course that was a realization that came too late.
I apologize wholeheartedly for being reactionary, when instead I should have asked your meaning.
I dunno why, but I have been doing that too frequently lately.
Thanks for explaining and not being as unreasonable as I was to you.
OK. Thanks. Accepted, and of course offered right back.
Social skills are -not- my strong suit.
Once upon a time, I (sincerely) thanked my Drill Sargent for calling me “-smart- ass”.
That went… badly wrong.
The term “peer review”, as used in academia, is actually somewhat of a misnomer. When applied to an individual, unless one is discussing hereditary nobility an accurate definition of the term “peer” is indeed “a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and/or social status” (an acceptable alternative in the legal realm is “a person of the same legal status”). This is NOT the meaning of the term with respect to so-called academic “peer review”.
What academics term “peer review” is actually designed to be an expert-level review – e.g., a review of a proposed publication by a group of individuals who are experts in the field. In theory, the authors of such an article are not yet generally a true “peer” of those doing the review. Rather, they aspire to reach that level.
I’m not sure if this is the earliest known example of Orwellian Doublespeak (the first peer-reviewed article dates to the 1600s, as I recall). But it certainly seems to be an example of, if not Doublespeak, playing “fast and loose” with the meaning of commonly-understood English terms.
That makes sense, and explains me getting out in the weeds, above. (OK, sliced the ball into the next county…)
Maybe the original meaning in academia was ‘reviewed by a bunch of roughly equivalent experts’ instead of ‘reviewed by the dumbass author’s equally dumbass
authors’ or whatever.
Or editing.
I have to agree with ID SARC that what you are describing is proof reading, regardless of what your office culture calls it.
When I was in graduate school, my beloved wife would proof read my papers for grammar, spelling, and sensibility. But, bless her heart, reading about spacetime constructs and philosophy of science was not her cup of tea.
For a peer review, my fellow graduate students would review my paper in a presentation and cut it to shreds. Then for the final review the professor would have his go at it.
See the difference?
I get it. Thanks.
(Oh did I get it…)
ROFL.
Every once in a while we all get it.
I honestly believe that a distinction must be understood between peer review (and even, “subject matter expert review”) in the physical sciences and in the social “sciences.” I’ve gone through a “peer review process” three times on works I’ve created relating to engineering. This was very helpful to me and to the final product. I was not, however, attempting to prove some oblique theory about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (or about two guys looking at the wall in a urinal, and talking.)
Physical science and engineering are fields in which peer review _can_ matter–for example did you misapply the first radiation constant when you really mean the second radiation constant? But I don’t think that is the point Ex-PH2 is addressing here. She is, instead, addressing what I would consider the “mushy” social sciences, and does quite a fine job making her point, I believe.
Why, thank you, bg2. My primary intention was entertainment; the secondary aim was exactly your point.
Ex-PH2, you got my point and if you’d wish to, you might promote it further, in another venue. Fine work.
Sadly, even the hard sciences and engineering disciplines are not immune to (1) poor quality peer review, (2) scam reviews, or (3) paid publication. I’ve linked to documented examples of all three in the hard sciences and engineering disciplines in my comments elsewhere.
You are correct! If IEEE can screw up, any pub. can.
Am usually a speed reader, but took your advice to take the time to read not only the articles you posted, but your article as well.
Glad I did it. Very enjoyable.
Great job as always, Ex-PH2!
It is not required to get published. Hell, you can pay a fee to get published is some journals.
But that does not change the fact that a methodñogy and evidence used in a non peer reviewed paper has been subjected to no external fact checking or scrutiny.
Methodology.
Using a spanish language keyboard so my typos are weirder today.
Siempre con las escusas, pinche analfabeto!
Como siempre, el tonto ha perdido el punto.
Ok. I cannot throw stones on typos.
You -win-.
So now I understand why my pecker is so much bigger. Thank you.
“… more value if peer review was a dick-measuring contest”
I’m so disappointed in this misogynistic statement. We must not forget the women scientists. So either a clitoris measuring and/or breast measuring contest must be added to this proposal. Anyone here who wishes to be on the scientific team for measuring these contests (data points for the study) raise your hand. Being the expert, IDC Sarc will be the peer reviewer for your findings. Don’t forget to include the Pee value determination in your conclusions.
I’m interested in the phenomenon of “Clitoral Oscillations Secondary to the Friction Coefficient of Transient Glossolingual Stimulation.”
My whole life I have been stuck in crowded room and always without a peer.
You poor girl. I’ll send you a box of lollipops.
My kudos to most of the responders to ExPH2’s article. Most of my gripes about today’s “scientific process” were addressed much more calmly than I generally address the problem areas. The misuse of statistics, the cronyism in peer review, the politicization of science, and so many more issues always sets my blood a boiling.
Speaking of statistics misuse, I recommend William Briggs “Uncertainty”. It is expensive and can be a tough read without a reasonable statistics background, but it is well worth it just for the connections of science to philosophy which he makes. We have lost much of that connection today and it needs to be restored in science. If you have a reasonable statistics understanding with an underlying philosophical basis, it is really easy to destroy much of the garbage science being generated today. I recently ate my university professor sister-in-law’s lunch when she touted an anti-gun “study”. It was pure sociology biased garbage.
Had the article been peer-reviewed by the late Prof. Irwin Corey, The World’s Foremost Authority, it would never have been published. He would have accused them, correctly, of plagiarizing him.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-004&hsimp=yhs-004&hspart=mozilla&p=irwin+corey%2C+youtube#id=2&vid=78ed5fe5a973108f49233a3cb0db1730&action=view
He is a true Inspiration for the Aspiratious among us.
Talented, yes. An inspiration? YMMV, but for me – no.
Corey was a lifelong supporter of Communist/Socialist/other left-wing politics and causes – including Cuba, Mumia Abu-Jamal, the American Communist Party, and the Vermont Commie.
Jeez, dude, lighten up. Give the devil his due. Enjoy the laughter while you can, there’s plenty of time for life’s darker side. As the beer commercial says, “Grab all the gusto you can!” (and all the beer).
ROFL
http://www.nejm.org/page/media-center/publication-process
Regarding the process at NEJM as an example.
http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-reason-for-retraction/self-peer-review/
Apologies if this was already posted, but it’s a site that is useful regarding retrations.
http://retractionwatch.com
sorry^^^^ that’s actually the homepage, but y’all woulda figured that out
My man Plato once said that knowledge is a justifiable true belief; this is usually called the JTB theory of knowledge.
There have been some criticisms over the years (that bastard Gettier), but it has essentially stood the test of time.
The basic idea is that you only know something if your knowledge is a) Justifiable- you have actual evidence and logic, b) True- it is actually true, and c) You believe it.
Knowledge must meet all three requirements. If I guess right about how many pennies are in a jar, it is true and my belief, but it isn’t knowledge because I have no justification beyond a guess.
This is where peer review comes in. Science is essentially the pursuit of knowledge. Actual peer review (not fake peer review like this example) helps ensure that researchers can justify their findings.
This is only one leg to the stool, though. Peer review does not ensure that either the findings are true or that people believe them. Nor does it ensure that we know everything we need to know.
I used the pigs flying example above to demonstrate how actual fraud (and a hoax is essentially fraud) can fool the process- making up data, lying about how you collected data, etc).
The other thing you have to consider is that these studies are usually VERY focused in scope, and therefore produce knowledge of limited scope. In the pig example, a researcher may compare the weight to thrust ratio of pigs to say, strategic bombers, and determine that theoretically a pig could generate enough thrust to fly. Does that mean pigs could fly? No, it means that one argument against pigs flying is not true. This is knowledge, but not very useful knowledge.
Scientists know this, however. Well, most of them. The hard core guys do, and the real social scientists do, but some of the pop social scientists use this to disguise tidbits of knowledge as wide sweeping truths. Peer review helps stop this.
OK, I’ve got to throw a monkey wrench in here just for grins and giggles. So allow me to play “reddevil’s aggravate” with Plato’s “justifiable true belief” criteria:
Tom has a red car. Fred knows Tom and has seen him with his red car.
Unbeknownst to Fred, Tom trades in his red car for another red car.
Fred has justification for his belief that Tom has a red car – he has seen him with one.
It is true that Tom has a red car.
Fred believes Tom has a red car.
But Fred does not know that Tom has a different red car now.
So Fred does not know that Tom has a red car. His justifiable true belief does not yield knowledge.
Theoretically, neither butterflies nor bees of any species should be able to fly. Theory does not explain the fact that they can, indeed, fly, or how bees can corner like they’re on rails.
EX-PH2, I wrote this several years ago when I had a pretty popular medical blog. There is more to the story but I’ll just post this excerpt. I went down to the Cousins Sub shop the other day to get a sandwich. I had already paid for my sub when I decided to sit down briefly and wait for the clerk to call me and tell me it was ready. While reclined in one of the chairs and reflecting on what I wanted to do for the rest of the day, two men in their late twenties pimp walked into the shop. Their thick New York accent and pimp walk amused me as both were white men (fodder for another post). The first sauntered up to the clerk, mounted a tangle of confusing and stupid questions, and finally settled on a sandwich. The second dude, grabbing his penis/balls, while pimp swinging his way across the room, made his way to the counter to order a sandwich. I counted three episodes of him grabbing his dooflicker, while walking less than 20 feet across the shop. While he asked the clerk questions about the sandwiches he grabbed his gully-raker an additional eight times. This guy sounded quite stupid so I wonder whether he had only one functioning hemoglobin carrying red blood cell, and he had to reach down and squeeze it out of his solicitor-general to his brains only monosynaptic neuron. Perhaps he was reaching for his one functioning neuron and attempting to stimulate it? I shall never know. I don’t need to add that these two fine specimens of maleness arrived in one of those jacked-up look at my loud tall penis pickups. The tallest of the two was possibly 5’7”, maybe. I know the clerk there at the sandwich shop pretty well and I always order the same sandwich. When he is working the back counter making sandwiches and he sees me standing in line, he usually has my order ready before I can get to the cashier and pay for it. This day I was watching his face and… Read more »
Sir Martin Wagstaff?
I have seldom run across a compendium of euphemisms for Studley Lancelot’s personal potato poker. That is a fine piece of creativity, Azygos.
I can’t answer for all women, of course, but when a physically adult male human keeps the Grabbowski activity underway, I’d guess it’s related to: a) jock itch; b) trouser crotch seam too tight; c) shifting weight of the pingpong balls he stuck in his tighty-whiteys; or d) pocket seam coming apart where wallet is deposited.
Otherwise, I’d say it’s a false narrative regarding his one-eyed trouser snake.
“Throbbing python of love” – h/t to Robin Williams….
Even a garter snake will work if wielded efficiently.
Or so I am told.
Or e) He has a raging case of the crabs.