9
   

Fake Science Journals

 
 
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2013 07:02 am
It seems that more and more internet sited and organizations are popping up which will publish "science" studies for a fee, rather than by virtue of peer review.

I suppose this was inevitable as the proliferation of anti-information clogs the Internet, but it's something which real researchers are going to have to become much more aware of. We've seen this already here on A2K with regard to some Cosmology Journals with questionable motives and highly questionable science. And I'm certain the Creationist organizations will be quick to create their own "Science Journal" sites with a selected and biased board of reviewers who will approve whatever they want approved. It's only a matter of time.

More can be found in the article here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/03/228859954/some-online-journals-will-publish-fake-science-for-a-fee

Peer review has always been the measure by which scientific claims were evaluated, but as more pay-for-review sites pop up with their own approved group of "peers" which will review any article in a favorable light for a fee, it will be come harder and harder to differentiate the real journals form the fake ones. And I think at some point everyone is going to start asking just what constitutes a valid "peer review". Will academic status be the measure of scientific standing, or will success in science itself be the standard, or will it be something else?

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2013 09:52 am
@rosborne979,
THE JOURNAL of CREATION

I get this one for many years and Ive used it in class as an example of how to screw with logic or to work with "precepts of illogicality"

The artic;es claim to be peer reviewed, and I have to keep reminding myself that their standards of scholarship aren't as high as they wish us to believe. Thir articles on archeology (mostly Biblical) are interesting though

Quote:
tarted in 1984, Journal of Creation brings you in-depth, peer-reviewed comment, reviews and the latest research findings that relate to origins and the biblical account of Creation, the Flood and the Fall.

The journal covers a wide spectrum of studies, not just science. Powerful articles have appeared on topics such as philosophy, theology, history, archaeology, social sciences and many more.

This is a great complement to Creation magazine, providing in-depth material from many experts in their field to satisfy the enquiring mind.

Presenting the latest in creation research, Journal of Creation keeps you up-to-date on creation/evolution controversies, pointing out the latest flaws in evolutionary arguments. Journal of Creation strives to publish papers that promote the development of rigorously logical biblically-consistent models in various areas.

This journal offers analytical and inclusive comments in well-referenced articles that will keep you powerfully informed on many topics. A one-year subscription includes three issues, each around 120+ pages.



The other Creation "Science " Journals, such as
Creation ex Nihilo and Creation Magazine, Ive not found or sought out too strongly because they don't seem to be aimed at being scholarly.

Im assuming that the Discovery Institute has a print newsletter (other than its web site, but Ive not found it yet.


There are a lot of Paleo SCience popular journals which, while "sort of peer reviewed" are more for kids.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Fri 4 Oct, 2013 09:40 pm
"Peer review" is a pretty meaningless phrase when you consider who the "peers" of some of these authors are.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Oct, 2013 01:06 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
"peer" dos man that it is inclusive of representatives of a group that YOU are in . In other word, your equal. SO "peer review" of these phony journls are just a bunch of phonies.

peer reviewed"Creation Xcience" Journal is just a Creationists periodical produced for ,by, and reviewed by
other Creationists.

Johnathan Wells, the Discovery Institutes favorite "Polished Monkey" was financed and pushed into "science" by Rev Sun Nyung Moon . The result of this guys trining in religion and genetics hs resulted in a guy who is constantly writing and being "peer reviewed" by his buddies like Duane Gish and other fellow travelers who couldn't even come up with decent committee of geneticists nd paleo scientists nd evolution biologists or molecular chemists to review hi ork and opinions. Whenever Wells speaks in front of orhnizations that aren't as directed as the Discovery Institute, he gets chewed up quite regularly.
0 Replies
 
Jpsy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Dec, 2013 01:01 am
@rosborne979,
I wonder how many fake science journals there are in other scientific disciplines as well. I hear there is a lot of bogus "theories" and nonsense going on in the social sciences. For instance, gender "theory" claims men and women are both born as blank slates, and masculinity and femininity is pushed on us, and has nothing to do with biology or testosterone. In other words, the only reason boys play with fire trucks and play war with each other is because it's forced on them. There are many other "theories" such as that, and I'm sure they are being published and debated in "peer review" journals, probably with the purposeful exclusion of any scientists who disagree with them.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Dec, 2013 08:36 am
@Jpsy,
theres a bunch of questionable journals. New journals are being started (and dumped) each year , and these are jut the rel science journal. One of the problems is that a journal my be so damned limited in interest that articles cn get published and then don't get "corrected" until someone actually sees the article in the journal nd fires a "What the hell's a matter with you guys?" letter to the eds.
If that happens a lot, the journal is in danger of folding.

Biblical Archeology Journal is , IMHO a really good scientifically accurte means of finding Biblical referenced locations (like the recent findings of REhovoth), and assessing events in the Penteteuch. Usually no Biblical references about events are presented because the articles re mostly limited in their intent.(and they are done by archeologists who don't like to speculate about "miraculous events" or deity created cataclysms.)
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 03:11 am
Then there is the slapstick

The Journal of Irreproducible Results

However, even slapstick is based upon some knowledge of the process that would include peer review.

BTW I've always been confused on what constitutes a peer---I know of an individual who is a self admitted amateur paleontologist, but after a lifetime of research concerning his hobby is now considered a peer worthy of reviewing in this field.

I have also wondered about what is peer review when a learned expert comments on a subject outside his field. After all Fermat was professionally a lawyer.


Rap
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2014 05:19 am
@raprap,
The Society of Mechanical Engineering,ASME, for a long time, hadthe "peer review" contract for the US DOE. They published yearly volumes of "Assessments of Technologies Supported by the Office of SCience and Technology (DOE)"
In each volume, the ASME presents the rationale for its own unique peer review system. As far as Ive seen, (I used to be part of this), there were no actual educational requirements stipulated. Instead, a "peer review committee had to be proposed and reviewed by an Executive Committee that oversaw these programs.
Most people hd advanced degrees AND lotsa experience. A few people had NO advanced degrees but had line experience (Anything delaing with any plant ops (like at y-12) would usually alwy include such a pwrson or two in a specific technology review committee.
Each year the volume presented technical peer reviews of a hundred or moe contracts.
(It was a good way to catch dumb research or to propose some technology be "speeded up" (for broader market operations), or even where research showed that no further testing was needed, to stablish a "lets go to market: action group.

I don't know that this process is still alive. Many govt contracts in research had been disappeared in the last 15 years
0 Replies
 
Rickoshay75
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Dec, 2014 04:48 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

It seems that more and more internet sited and organizations are popping up which will publish "science" studies for a fee, rather than by virtue of peer review.

I suppose this was inevitable as the proliferation of anti-information clogs the Internet, but it's something which real researchers are going to have to become much more aware of. We've seen this already here on A2K with regard to some Cosmology Journals with questionable motives and highly questionable science. And I'm certain the Creationist organizations will be quick to create their own "Science Journal" sites with a selected and biased board of reviewers who will approve whatever they want approved. It's only a matter of time.

Many scientists probably have doubts about what they wrote in books and journals, but they are not about to admit it, not when they could lose their credibility and income source.

More can be found in the article here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/10/03/228859954/some-online-journals-will-publish-fake-science-for-a-fee

Peer review has always been the measure by which scientific claims were evaluated, but as more pay-for-review sites pop up with their own approved group of "peers" which will review any article in a favorable light for a fee, it will be come harder and harder to differentiate the real journals form the fake ones. And I think at some point everyone is going to start asking just what constitutes a valid "peer review". Will academic status be the measure of scientific standing, or will success in science itself be the standard, or will it be something else?


0 Replies
 
Banana Breath
 
  3  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 04:00 pm
More insidious than fake science journals, which quickly get identified and labeled as such, is the practice of "buying" legitimate researchers. This practice is widespread especially by big pharma in introducing new drugs, but there are other examples as well.
Palm oil for instance is a known nasty substance, yet one with huge market value. How does one counteract those goodie two-shoes studies that say it will kill you with a half dozen doses? Find a willing researcher at a university whose tenure is in question and offer some sponsored research. $200,000 for you and your lab and your results BETTER say that palm oil is the best thing since sliced bread. The palm oil marketing association leaves it to the researcher to figure out how to get the bogus research published but sooner or later they will.
I'd mention names but they'd just want to sue, so if you instead google "palm oil benefits" and find someone with a PhD at a university making such claims, follow the money and you'll inevitably find industry grants paying for the "research."
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 04:39 pm
@Banana Breath,
The U.S. pharmacological industry is, without a doubt, one of the most powerful and successful criminal organizations in the world.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 06:15 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
where the hell you been?
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jan, 2015 09:10 pm
@farmerman,
Oh, I've been around but my 'puter was hospitalised with a bad virus infection for more than a week during the holidays. Kept me offline and frustrated. Thankee for asking.
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 10:34 am
The popular press have a share in this problem. They grab any genuine bit of science is streched to its limits to make a story, and its a story we all love to read. Take diet and the food industry I don't know just what advice to take. The word science legitimises just about anything . Stick science infront of any topic and it becomes the gold-standard of truth.
In a world largely run for profit the poor old scientist has to jump on the bandwagon with the politician and the religious enthusiast. They are joined by the eductionalist in the glorious quest for finance.
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 10:41 am
@magnocrat,
Yes, you raise some good points. Apparently there are millions of people in the US who are now avoiding "gluten" although they have no idea why. They see a sensationalist news report and supermarket packaging saying "gluten free" and assume they must change their behavior to remain healthy. Unfortunately for every except those rare individuals with celiac disease, this isn't true, and gluten is among the safest and most healthy foods in the world for the rest of us.
magnocrat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 02:33 pm
@Banana Breath,
Yes very true and while we wax eloquently about scientific education the vast majority want entertainment. They leave the education bit to their doctors and computer engineers. Surround me with the experts I need and I can relax with a doenut, but you politicians make sure I'm comfortable or I won't give you my vote. Turn down that Beethoven turn up the disco.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 03:19 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Well, Im glad , for one that youre back on the line. After yeserdays crash, Ive decided to give m self three times a day when I cn play on my bulletin boards. I devote like 20 min a time to A2K, and then Ill devote like n hour t one shot with my geology friends on another line.
Ive discovered that Im fuckin off too much on the A2K line because Im arguing over the number of fossils in a pound.

Im so glad that there are some sane guys and gals still around.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 03:24 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Im so glad that there are some sane guys and gals still around.


Where, where?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fake Science Journals
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/16/2018 at 06:48:12