RT @Takashirouzu: でたらめな科学論文を304のOA誌に投稿したところ半数以上の157誌でアクセプトされてしまった事件の顛末.10年前の報告.https://t.co/o1TjG2LV5Z
RT @Takashirouzu: でたらめな科学論文を304のOA誌に投稿したところ半数以上の157誌でアクセプトされてしまった事件の顛末.10年前の報告.https://t.co/o1TjG2LV5Z
RT @Takashirouzu: でたらめな科学論文を304のOA誌に投稿したところ半数以上の157誌でアクセプトされてしまった事件の顛末.10年前の報告.https://t.co/o1TjG2LV5Z
でたらめな科学論文を304のOA誌に投稿したところ半数以上の157誌でアクセプトされてしまった事件の顛末.10年前の報告.https://t.co/o1TjG2LV5Z
批判対象まで考えれば、ソーカルよりボハノンを取り上げるべきでした https://t.co/w3iA5VTvbI
John Bohannon の "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" みたいな? https://t.co/i8QayuY9ry https://t.co/FhH3bq2XDg
RT @1blmoss: @JohntheLyricist A Sage publication accepted a bogus paper submitted during a sting operation. Without asking for any changes…
RT @1blmoss: @JohntheLyricist A Sage publication accepted a bogus paper submitted during a sting operation. Without asking for any changes…
@JohntheLyricist A Sage publication accepted a bogus paper submitted during a sting operation. Without asking for any changes to the paper's scientific content, the journal sent an acceptance letter and an invoice for $3100. https://t.co/DYnh77yhxt
"Some journals are trying to phase out p value significance testing altogether to nudge scientists into better habits. (...) But there are plenty of journals that care more about money than reputation." https://t.co/Aa8qRy3drR
@vegas_dondiego The evidence points to a serious problem with peer review https://t.co/P0ILI6cTSD https://t.co/2jbnVGqYZL https://t.co/8gyP0mI1s8 https://t.co/XmaFhB4eUX https://t.co/ULZgeKzD2R https://t.co/nNVMmvX8kw
@Damo__73_ @ellymelly ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh peer reviewed huh? The "scientific method" is now so fucked up that peer review is utterly meaningless: https://t.co/QnpIQViK06 https://t.co/zzDY6f8pbh https://t.co/X9c5NqUPEi https://t.co/grkfA474sN https://t
@orastynkkynen MDPI/Frontiers ovat vertaisarviointia laiminlyöneiden julkaisijoiden arkkityyppejä. Markkinat syntyivät kun julkaisijoiden voittoihin haluttiin puuttua/lisätä tieteen avoimuutta. Hyvä tavoite, huono toteutus: https://t.co/15ar9Vtu9B
RT @biblioGetafe: ¿Quién teme a la revisión por pares? | Science https://t.co/6VI9KzXWc5
RT @biblioGetafe: ¿Quién teme a la revisión por pares? | Science https://t.co/6VI9KzXWc5
RT @biblioGetafe: ¿Quién teme a la revisión por pares? | Science https://t.co/6VI9KzXWc5
RT @biblioGetafe: ¿Quién teme a la revisión por pares? | Science https://t.co/6VI9KzXWc5
"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" https://t.co/5o0wabNDXC
¿Quién teme a la revisión por pares? | Science https://t.co/6VI9KzXWc5
@HemlockAutumn @jonathanstea This is a good read https://t.co/T1nm5xocwt
@JohnPeate5 @harnold266 @TonyClimate How many the peer review papers that keep getting retracted from all fields because they're bogus? Only Leftists are dumb and gullible enough to believe anything produced by humans is instantly believable at face value
@elonmusk @garrytan There's nothing new under the sun: 2013: - how a fictitious paper passes peer review and enters publication at majority of journals (157 of the journals had accepted the paper and 98 had rejected it) https://t.co/IuAc9hboKl
@LibraryKirsten @carrieprice78 @carlyclaires Ahh, Medknow, publishers of fine fiction: https://t.co/U5uinFSNH1
@RadioFreeTom These people want you to believe that scientists are uniformly trustworthy and that science can be believed without question. Nothing can be further from the truth. https://t.co/go72yGSVDG
@matthieubulte @protosphinx And how’s that peer-review working? https://t.co/HKH4AmwcxH https://t.co/7KwC457J1Z
@aojn613 あと、ハゲタカが査読有かどうかについては、10年前にScienceに掲載された調査報告 https://t.co/y924FF1jR1 以降、様々の学術領域の研究者が検証して、明らかになっています。 https://t.co/rJCtR9tLzE
Más de 100 revistas científicas aceptaron publicar una investigación falsa generada por ordenador https://t.co/h7piJDHsIC
RT @brcpo9: @dealbakerjones @tautologer 1) Capitalism: "[academic journals'] worldwide sales > USD 19B" ... "5 large publishing houses: ...…
@dealbakerjones @tautologer 1) Capitalism: "[academic journals'] worldwide sales > USD 19B" ... "5 large publishing houses: ... control more than 50% of the market" ... "Elsevier has a profit margin approaching 40%" 2) It's called: arXiv, and there are
RT @BiGhararTW: حدود ۱۰ سال پیش سردبیر مجله science مقالهای تند در نقد تجارت مقالهنویسی نوشت و نشان داد که این تجارت چهقدر از علم و محتو…
حدود ۱۰ سال پیش سردبیر مجله science مقالهای تند در نقد تجارت مقالهنویسی نوشت و نشان داد که این تجارت چهقدر از علم و محتوای علمی تهی شده است. الان که ۱۰ سال هم جلوتر رفته معالاسف.. https://t.co/qTrCDngC8e
¿El proceso editorial es mejor con las editoriales de renombre? En este estudio, se envió una investigación espuria a diversas revistas. En editoriales de @ElsevierConnect @wkhealth y @SAGEPublishers se acepto dicho paper: https://t.co/f52cXhvAuC 4/
RT @sucholutsky: Whenever I get reviews back from ML confs (looking at you #ICML2023), I always think about the time Science trolled a bunc…
Whenever I get reviews back from ML confs (looking at you #ICML2023), I always think about the time Science trolled a bunch of journals into accepting spoof papers. Sometimes it makes me feel better. https://t.co/UaqEnQcI8u
@Abraham_RMI @jmmorang Pues la verdad es que no lo recuerdo, tiene ya bastantes años, pero es posible que fuera este: https://t.co/BB10nCjwPt
@comoasiyava @luisreyes @MartinaYopo No a mano, recuerdo que esa era la historia: el paper se lo devolvieron con revisiones que Sokal no quiso hacer y luego de un tiempo lo incluyeron en el numero especial "Science wars". Hay otro tipo que hizo lo mismo, p
自分にはPLoS の投稿してみないかのご案内メールは不要。個人的には、高IFのOAJよりも、低IFであっても新規性や科学的意義をきちんと査読してもらえる当該学会誌に受理されることに意味があると思ってる。
@IOPenvironment Would you like to receive feedback on your reviewer report? Okay. A review of a review is real now. https://t.co/Lz0bQfIOlX
Of course, than they couldn't make it into an attack on the humanities. That eagerness points to the humanities value. Thread:
@sevenstaruk @nageco @Hussain73281269 @JamesMelville It's not that it is not perfect, it's that it is useless. Real errors aren't found, and fake errors are found in papers that the reviewers don't want to get published, this is more than clear. https://t.
RT @PostigoElena: "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", by John Bohannon https://t.co/wT11Xv5bRy, vía Science. Historia de un fraude probado: "en…
RT @PostigoElena: "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", by John Bohannon https://t.co/wT11Xv5bRy, vía Science. Historia de un fraude probado: "en…
RT @PostigoElena: "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", by John Bohannon https://t.co/wT11Xv5bRy, vía Science. Historia de un fraude probado: "en…
RT @PostigoElena: "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", by John Bohannon https://t.co/wT11Xv5bRy, vía Science. Historia de un fraude probado: "en…
"Who's Afraid of Peer Review?", by John Bohannon https://t.co/wT11Xv5bRy, vía Science. Historia de un fraude probado: "envió a 304 de estas revistas un artículo deliberadamente fraudulento, plagado de errores de bulto, 157 de ellas aceptaron su trabajo y s
There is corruption in academic publishing where the same elite perpetrators like @mattjhodgkinson move around from PLOS to Hindawi and BMC or wherever there is a mess to clean up and money to be made. https://t.co/oCXGY89mjT
RT @gaou_ak: 例のオープンアクセスジャーナル版のソーカル事件論文のジャーナルとのやりとりのE-mailちょこちょこ見てるんだけど、なかなか面白い。PLoS Oneが実にまともで、すげぇ、まともだ!って当たり前のことに感動してしまった。http://t.co/Za9v…
Links dos artigos citados no vídeo: https://t.co/0gKKTYfTA5 https://t.co/3XNRBijJAX
RT @Amor_y_Rabia: RECORDEMOS: Hace unos años una investigación falsa generada de manera automática por ordenador fue aceptada por más de 10…
@stephenrdoyle @MartinKNielsen @JohnGilleard I’m sure you have seen this… https://t.co/13KPNEuTkO
Periodismo de verdad en Science; desenmascarando revistas científicas truchas. Vía @jjmerelo https://t.co/j2YGod8qzU … #periodismo
Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013) https://t.co/Zrlxjd3CyS
@PhysicsNapkins @Khiogy Eso ocurre en otras categorías y repito, por una mal peer-review. https://t.co/zydYrimy3t
@Unceroalaizqui2 @MissPandebonos @elperiodico Ok y puedes esta vez mostrar uno? Claro que no sea algo de internet, sino de una fuente científica, como este. https://t.co/RqkL5tsMEX
RT @Amor_y_Rabia: RECORDEMOS: Hace unos años una investigación falsa generada de manera automática por ordenador fue aceptada por más de 10…
RECORDEMOS: Hace unos años una investigación falsa generada de manera automática por ordenador fue aceptada por más de 100 revistas científicas 1) https://t.co/YCH15ZpdyU 2) https://t.co/5T3oLgbgeF 3) https://t.co/msIVoPulHp https://t.co/xmqR7UfxWS
@CraigKellyMP This "organisation" was caught out in a sting a few years ago. It was aimed at exposing the lack of actual peer reviews amongst fraudulent organisations. https://t.co/GNT1gzzNDm
@amandab1877 @roccogalatilaw I look at it on a per author basis. Saying "many doctors believe this" does not mean it is true-it means "many doctors believe this". It has little weight. https://t.co/C0G56IQKnH Interesting article about bogus peer reviews.
@PorBerdad Hay algo peor, dentro de esas revistas hay una, digamos, subsección, de secuestradores. Su propio nombre indica qué son. No sé si te refieres con acción a lo que hizo este hombre https://t.co/5GByG6lSgW
Tremendo makina https://t.co/2ee5Tp9NGQ
RT @MLegiste: From 2013! #ethics #publishing https://t.co/3W72IxmaIg https://t.co/qEiaKb3mbf
"Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately..." https://t.co/G4xTNK5CZW
Who's Afraid of Peer Review? https://t.co/2KxGAfRBGN 意図的に明らかに誤りのある論文を複数の雑誌に投稿したところ、半数以上でアクセプトされたという実験論文があるってことで大部分がOAJで獲得したImpact factorで威張る人、正直しんどい…。
Will there be review of review of review of review.....? https://t.co/02LFGJF6hl
RT @AlisonBlunt: 12. ..'revealed some shocking results.[https://t.co/2QEwJkXDIE] A member of Science’s staff wrote a spoof paper, riddled w…
RT @AlisonBlunt: 12. ..'revealed some shocking results.[https://t.co/2QEwJkXDIE] A member of Science’s staff wrote a spoof paper, riddled w…
RT @AlisonBlunt: @YemenNewsToday 'A recent investigation by the American journal Science...' https://t.co/BlapDcEdY5
RT @AlisonBlunt: @YemenNewsToday 'A recent investigation by the American journal Science...' https://t.co/BlapDcEdY5
RT @AlisonBlunt: @YemenNewsToday 'A recent investigation by the American journal Science...' https://t.co/BlapDcEdY5
RT @AlisonBlunt: 12. ..'revealed some shocking results.[https://t.co/2QEwJkXDIE] A member of Science’s staff wrote a spoof paper, riddled w…
@KM1622603916 I might push back that due to the crowdsourced aspect of Wikipedia, it is more peer reviewed than most journals. But it is not perfect. Check out https://t.co/u1b0hhFmUi versus https://t.co/QRwkA0Dtz5 #EDU6323
@YemenNewsToday 'A recent investigation by the American journal Science...' https://t.co/BlapDcEdY5
12. ..'revealed some shocking results.[https://t.co/2QEwJkXDIE] A member of Science’s staff wrote a spoof paper, riddled with scientific &statistical errors, &sent 304 versions of it to a range of peer-reviewed journals. It was accepted for publica
@Antonio29955126 @Juliette_Barot @EugenieBastie @Uneheuredepeine Il paraît qu'en biologie qui comme chacun sait n'est pas une science des scientifiques ont validé un papier où les erreurs évidentes sont si importantes qu'elles devraient être remarquées par
RT @gundogdu_sedat0: Hiçbir yer ülkesinin Asmara şehrindeki Wassee Institute of Medicine'den, Biyolog Ocorrafoo Cobange'nin sıradışı hikaye…
Hiçbir yer ülkesinin Asmara şehrindeki Wassee Institute of Medicine'den, Biyolog Ocorrafoo Cobange'nin sıradışı hikayesini okuyun. https://t.co/SK72J611Xi
RT @VoiceofAcademia: Her makale bilimsel midir? Bu soruya cevap arayan John Bohannon 304 dergiye baştan sona anlamsız sahte makaleler gön…
RT @VoiceofAcademia: Her makale bilimsel midir? Bu soruya cevap arayan John Bohannon 304 dergiye baştan sona anlamsız sahte makaleler gön…
RT @VoiceofAcademia: Her makale bilimsel midir? Bu soruya cevap arayan John Bohannon 304 dergiye baştan sona anlamsız sahte makaleler gön…
RT @VoiceofAcademia: Her makale bilimsel midir? Bu soruya cevap arayan John Bohannon 304 dergiye baştan sona anlamsız sahte makaleler gön…
@StopMakingSnse @ciudadano_py @EdoajoEric @HoustonUmmc @NIH there are journals who will publish anything for money https://t.co/T77q8kFIWG and then there's journals who at least have a reputation to protect, but still aren't that great, like The Lancet an
@ciudadano_py @Covid19Critical except i'm not a scientist. i can, however, look at facts like Dr. Kory's main evidence in front of US Senate being a study from Latin America (which largely fell victim to Surgisphere study) published in an obscure open acce
Who's Afraid of Peer Review? https://t.co/LWMQtITXaL
@jm_mallarach ¡Gracias! Éste no lo conocía. Aquí el enlace (está en abierto): https://t.co/6Rd61lWLSX
@mrtbollen @Floyd1217 @zev_dr Dat kan vele oorzaken hebben, bv journals kunnen malafide zijn (zie bv Bealls list), in eigen beheer (D. Raoult), slechte peer review hebben (Bohannons spoof), fast-track review heeft nadelen, en wat Gorski schrijft over incen
@WEschenbach @GretaThunberg "Open Access" smh https://t.co/zXgxW1OXLj
#Kit_revision_pares #Kit_META 🎼Un clásico para la clase👩🏫 👇 https://t.co/05k8vSPx15
Who's Afraid of Peer Review? https://t.co/e2sV4yAoFl
Yleensä verkkokeskusteluissa keskitytään sosiaalitieteisiin, mutta ongelma laajemmalle levinnyt. Taustalla tiedejulkaisemisen liiketoimintana oleminen. Systeemi perustuu oletukseen järjestelmän joustamattomuudesta (valmiudesta maksaa) uusien kuluerien edes
Hey @M_F_Rose, @BenCKinney & @ConceptCrucible remember that Peer Review panel we did for @dconscitrack - an article just got put on my reading list for class and I wanted someone else to scream with me about it. https://t.co/TXsHZKkMwa