Posted on Aug 23, 2023
Top journal "Science" says more than 2,600 of its papers may have ‘exaggerated claims’
80
1
3
0
0
0
If you're not smart enough to know this has been going on for a long time, it is too late for you anyhow.
Top journal "Science" says more than 2,600 of its papers may have ‘exaggerated claims’
Posted from justthenews.com
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 1
1
1
0
Looks like the Journal Science failed to do its job of reviewing papers before publication and is now look to shift blame. Oh and BTW an Abstract is a paragraph or so and not the whole paper and anyone making decisions on an Abstract should lose their job.
(1)
(0)
CMSgt Marcus Falleaf
Just a lack of trust in a lot different areas now days. Science is no longer as concrete as it once was. When government leaders can't determine men and women, there will always be doubt.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Not just the journal, the scientific community as an entity.
Peer reviewed papers are supposed to be ACTUALLY reviewed. But for the last 20 years or so - with a significant increase over the last 5 years - papers were sent either to peers who would rubber stamp them, or to like-minded peers who would not challenge or explore underlying assumptions (or the data). Often the "peers" were in a related, but different field, so could not fully vet the papers.
The scientific journals have every incentive to find ways to publish papers - they rely on those papers for content. The paper-writers have every incentive to publish as many papers as rapidly as possible - published papers = money. And NOT publishing, for many in academia, will cost them a job. In this environment, it is in everyone's best interest to get reviews done as quickly as possible, and with as little critical thinking being used to challenge them as possible. Everyone's interest except the public, that is.
Peer reviewed papers are supposed to be ACTUALLY reviewed. But for the last 20 years or so - with a significant increase over the last 5 years - papers were sent either to peers who would rubber stamp them, or to like-minded peers who would not challenge or explore underlying assumptions (or the data). Often the "peers" were in a related, but different field, so could not fully vet the papers.
The scientific journals have every incentive to find ways to publish papers - they rely on those papers for content. The paper-writers have every incentive to publish as many papers as rapidly as possible - published papers = money. And NOT publishing, for many in academia, will cost them a job. In this environment, it is in everyone's best interest to get reviews done as quickly as possible, and with as little critical thinking being used to challenge them as possible. Everyone's interest except the public, that is.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google