Leftist Pseudo-Intellectuals Peer-Review and Publish Hoax Study

[Honor]

This whole thing is going to end up with the alt right reinventing the wheel, it seems. Just the nature of change, I guess.

How do you think the academia ended up with a "liberal" dominated population? Any ideas, @RomanKing? If you can answer this question correctly, you will soon realize there will not be any academia without the people you believe are "liberals".

Frankly you lot do not know what end of the stick you are holding. Your hatred of everything you don't understand is going to get you all in a lot of trouble.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

“The atoms of a better universe will have the right for the same as you are the way we shall have to be a great place for a great time to enjoy the day you are a wonderful person to your great time to take the fun and take a great time and enjoy the great day you will be a wonderful time for your parents and kids,”

There is no way that paper was proofread. The question here is what is worse: The fact that the people from the nuclear physics conference didn't even read their submissions before accepting or the fact that maybe (?) the paper posted by @RomanKing was proofread and no one noticed it was gibberish.

 

[Arwon]

They're all just examples of the dubious low-end academic churn business model that now exists outside the actual reputable publications.

 

[El_Machinae]

Fake papers getting through peer review is a known thing. In general, there are a variety of known problems with peer review.

This is one reason why there's a subculture that encourages you to track the quality of a journal before publishing or citing

 

[Cheetah]

Acceptance of hoax article filled with gibberish presumably proves the field of nuclear physics is fake leftist pseudo intellectual garbage

And from the end of the Guardian article:

[...]

A bogus research paper reading only “Get me off Your F***ing Mailing List” repeated over and over again was accepted by the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology, an open-access academic journal, in November 2014.

So, yeah: there are problems with the way we currently peer review and distribute scientific research.

There are ignorance, unscientific researchers, and profiteers who care nothing for science at work everywhere. The process is supposed to weed them out, but of course it isn't perfect. Gender studies seem to be one of the less rigorous fields, but to simply dismiss all of it is unreasonable.

 

[RomanKing]

How do you think the academia ended up with a "liberal" dominated population? Any ideas, @RomanKing? If you can answer this question correctly, you will soon realize there will not be any academia without the people you believe are "liberals".

Since we had universities before modern liberalism, I can safely say that we will have them afterwards as well. Anyhow, to answer your question:

1) Tenure.
2) Liberal biases when it comes to hiring and career advancement opportunities.
3) Conservatives are much more likely to develop a marketable skill and go to work in the private sector, rather than spending their lives theorizing.
4) Universities are not a welcoming place for conservatives - Even conservative students.

Frankly you lot do not know what end of the stick you are holding. Your hatred of everything you don't understand is going to get you all in a lot of trouble.

I'll be fine. It's people like yourself who are going to face some real problems.

But, you are partially right. My side is holding the stick. Take note of that and be sure to act accordingly.

 

[bernie14]

sorry I could not continue this interesting discussion last night, the wife wanted to watch Saturday night live....so much for the patriarchy BTW, there was a skit about a pedophile robot that made me laugh hysterically....

Well, you see, that's what is known as an opinion. You believe the desire to bring some more little germ volcanoes into the world is what defines social structure, Marx believed it came out of relations between capital and labor. I feel that if forced to choose between the two Marx provides a better explanation for the transfer of political and economic power toward capitalists away from the aristocracy than sex drive.

yes, opinions....marx saw a pregnant lady and assumed she was fat...went on to write thousands and thousands of pages about how to combat obesity.....I was under the impression that social structure, as defined by marx, preceded the capitalist era to at least the advent of agriculture, not so much the relations between capital and labor as the relationship between oppressor and oppressed...it changes the context quite a bit. I would argue that the factors that shaped human relations were in place even before we became a distinct species and are evolutionary. marx may have made some decent observations of events going on at the time but both his premise (the class struggle thing) and his conclusion (the glorious revolution and "establishment" of the non state) are based on conventions of his time. he is in good company, the Egyptians and mayans plotted the stars (but we dont believe in their religions any more), Hippocrates is considered the father of medicine (but the humors theory has fallen out of favor), freud made observations of the unconscious mind (but sexually repressed victorian women are no longer the norm). aside from everything else, marx seems to have woefully overestimated the human capacity for "rational" thought. again, and as usual, assumptions made with faulty or incomplete information.

It can be both, and I don't think it's clear that the issue of reproductive success is easily separable from the issue of class anyway.

yes, but a solid structure depends on a good foundation...if evolution is a sound theory, then reproductive success precedes social structures in living organisms, even if one can ascribe social structure to insect colonies, territoriality and hierarchy between/within groups. to me, it just seems marx is putting the proverbial cart before the horse....this may explain why every attempt to create a Marxist society has been such an abysmal failure.

 

[AdrienIer]

But, you are partially right. My side is holding the stick. Take note of that and be sure to act accordingly.

Why do you always resort to threats when you realize you're not winning the argument ?

 

[RomanKing]

Why do you always resort to threats when you realize you're not winning the argument ?

I certainly haven't made any threats. Threats always seemed foolish to me, as anyone who is prepared to act will never make threats.

Why do liberals always resort to name calling, baseless accusations, and hissy fits when they realize they're not winning the argument?

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: The hostility and dismissive comments are going to stop. This thread is now on a short leash. Be respectful and civil or don't participate. Thank you!

 

[Commodore]

There are ignorance, unscientific researchers, and profiteers who care nothing for science at work everywhere. The process is supposed to weed them out, but of course it isn't perfect. Gender studies seem to be one of the less rigorous fields, but to simply dismiss all of it is unreasonable.

I'd say there might be a good case to dismiss all of it though. Or, at the very least, call into question and examine all of the research more closely. It goes back to the old adage of "if this is what we're catching, just imagine what's getting through." Meaning of course that we only catch the obvious garbage, but the not-so-obvious garbage could be slipping through every single day until the whole field of research is populated with nothing but garbage research.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

this may explain why every attempt to create a Marxist society has been such an abysmal failure.

...except Chile of course. the Gringos just had to f it up for everyone :'(

 

[AdrienIer]

My dad is a researcher in computer science, and he's always told me that some journals and conferences were so bad that if he were to send a paper there it would actually tarnish his reputation. They're run and "peer reviewed" by people who are bad researchers but need to publish articles from time to time so their boss doesn't fire them.
It means that you need to check a journal/conference's reputation before taking it seriously.

 

[Lexicus]

.this may explain why every attempt to create a Marxist society has been such an abysmal failure.

On the contrary, every attempt to run society while ignoring Marx has been an abysmal failure. That, of course, includes pretty much every Marxist-Leninist revolution.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Until the OP realizes the difference between this "literally who?" journal and a publication like Nature this discussion cannot go anywhere productive.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, what the OP notices is that the peer-review process isn't perfect. A lot of us know that. But I will admit that a lot of people seem to actually worship the words 'peer review'. They shouldn't. There are enough holes in the system that it's obviously possible to slip through bad or even fraudulent papers.

Here's the thing, you cannot them just discard everything. Society truly needs a way to collect and build upon information. And we need a way to make decision outside of just being a young male using his gut. The peer review process isn't perfect. But it's going to have a higher net quality than the none-reviewed blog-for-advertising model. It just will.

Now, some blogs can be great. And some peer reviewed journals are bunk. But that's why you need to actually study a field before casting your opinion in iron. There's only one way to have an informed opinion, and that's to have built up an opinion based on a foundation of acceptable knowledge. Once you have that, you have an easier time learning which sources of 'news' are superior. There's a way to learn which journals are reputable, but it takes time. You cannot them dismiss all the research in a field because some shyster got a journal onto the peer-reviewed lists.

But, a simple rule-of-thumb when it comes to an author is to look at their total publications and the citations on their publications. The citation system can also be gamed, sure. Which means you need to drill down again. But citations are also our way (as researchers) of 'rewarding' other publishers. A citation means that we found their work useful.

 

[Berzerker]

climate change is caused by the little hole next to the penis

Moderator Action: This is a long way below our posting standards. FP

 

[Perfection]

So, what the OP notices is that the peer-review process isn't perfect. A lot of us know that. But I will admit that a lot of people seem to actually worship the words 'peer review'. They shouldn't. There are enough holes in the system that it's obviously possible to slip through bad or even fraudulent papers.

Here's the thing, you cannot them just discard everything. Society truly needs a way to collect and build upon information. And we need a way to make decision outside of just being a young male using his gut. The peer review process isn't perfect. But it's going to have a higher net quality than the none-reviewed blog-for-advertising model. It just will.

Now, some blogs can be great. And some peer reviewed journals are bunk. But that's why you need to actually study a field before casting your opinion in iron. There's only one way to have an informed opinion, and that's to have built up an opinion based on a foundation of acceptable knowledge. Once you have that, you have an easier time learning which sources of 'news' are superior. There's a way to learn which journals are reputable, but it takes time. You cannot them dismiss all the research in a field because some shyster got a journal onto the peer-reviewed lists.

But, a simple rule-of-thumb when it comes to an author is to look at their total publications and the citations on their publications. The citation system can also be gamed, sure. Which means you need to drill down again. But citations are also our way (as researchers) of 'rewarding' other publishers. A citation means that we found their work useful.

I just look stuff up on wikipedia and assume it's correct unless it's like a picture of some guys wiener

 

[Zelig]

I just look stuff up on wikipedia and assume it's correct unless it's like a picture of some guys wiener

Today I discovered that Kenton Cool is married to the music genre of Jazz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenton_Cool

 

[Ryika]

Apparently, I'm too stupid to find that video right now, but a while ago I watched a video of some professor who analyzed some high-tier social science papers and went through their citations.

What he found was that in multiple cases information that was presented in the credible paper actually came from known to be useless pay-to-publish papers. The information didn't get there directly, but instead "managed to climb the ranks" because multiple tiers of studies had cited other papers that were just "one tier" below them.

I can't say I know how all of that works, but if he's correct, then that's truly a scandal and shows a serious problem in the system. These low level papers muddy the accurate knowledge we have on any level, even without bad intent on the part of the people in the more respectable tiers.