http://io9.com/5855733/psychologist-admits-to-faking-dozens-of-scientific-studies

[Anonymous No.3991092]

>"We have some 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals where we are actually sure that they are fake, and there are more to come," says Pim Levelt, chair of the committee that investigated Stapel's work.

So much for the peer-review dogma.

[Anonymous No.3991096]

>committee that investigated Stapel's work.

Which means peer review eventually found the error.

[Anonymous No.3991098]

>>3991096
so meta

[Anonymous No.3991103]

Also,
>psychologist
Bits of psychology appear to be good science and the other bits are coming along, but it is still rather easy to just make up believable sounding data and theories without doing any work due to how imprecise large amounts of it still are.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991106]

>>3991096
Oh peer review, is there anything you can't do?

[Anonymous No.3991112]

>>3991096
They got it right the 31st time... if that's a success story to you...

[Anonymous No.3991123]

psychfag reporting in. This is exactly why it's good practice to actually read more than just the abstract or discussion section of an article. There are many times when "psychologists" even use the incorrect statistical test to get their data in the first place. It's tricky to figure out which one to use but it's not difficult. Sheesh. I'm embarrassed that this happens. I'm even more ashamed that psychologists invent data as a means to an end where they probably get a bunch of money for lies.

[TN5 !/sci/TN5.. No.3991126]

>>3991112
There are errors in many peer-reviewed papers. When you read one, either you are really going to use their work and you kind of have to do a thorough read yourself and you'll noticed the errors, or you're only vaguely reading the abstract and then it won't matter if the paper is full of shit because you won't really propagate the error. If something is groundbreaking, people will actually use that work and they will find errors if there are some. If not, who cares if there are errors, or if the whole paper is full of shit? Someone will have 30 almost non-cited papers that are fake? Good for him. Risky game to play but there's no real harm.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991128]

>>3991112
Well, getting it right the 31st, 100th, or one millionth time is still a success story in comparison to the alternative of not getting it right at all. It still demonstrates peer review to fulfill its purpose as the most reliable tool we have *at this point in time* to weed out bullshit papers.

And no, I'm not trying to excuse any of this shit. What I take from stories like this is that the review process needs to be more rigorous in many cases, not that "the peer review dogma" itself, as the OP so lovingly put it, is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned.

[Anonymous No.3991160]

>>3991126
>>3991128
So I'll put it as simply as possible. I'm tired of people hailing the peer-review process as if it's some kind of panacea. It can fail, it has failed, that much should be clear by now. I never said it's completely useless like you seem to be implying.

[TN5 !/sci/TN5.. No.3991170]

>>3991160
I never implied that. I meant that when it fails, it fails on papers that no one cares about and have no impact. I can publish a paper full of shit if I publish it in a low quality "letters" journal. It won't harm anyone and it won't do me much good.

Peer review however works extremely well on papers with a real interest to the community. They are reviewed by more reviewers, the reviewers are more qualified, they spend more time and effort reviewing the paper, and even if some errors remain when the paper is published, so many people will try to reproduce the results and understand everything that they will find out that there are errors, and the scientific community will listen to them.

So again, yes, peer-review can fail. No, it's not a problem.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991191]

>>3991160
>So I'll put it as simply as possible.
Wow, where's the condescension coming from? Your comments up to that point were:

>So much for the peer-review dogma"

and

>They got it right the 31st time... if that's a success story to you...

Neither of these make it sound *at all* like you're fine with peer review in principle. I mean, it's good that you bothered to clarify it, but if you want people to understand your position, maybe you should express it clearly in the first place, instead of hoping that vague cracks and reaction images will sufficiently get your point across.

>It can fail, it has failed, that much should be clear by now.
Yeah, it has been clear for a very long time. You're opposing a kind of rigid idolization of peer review that no one here is even defending, or arguing for.

[Anonymous No.3991209]

>>3991170
>I meant that when it fails, it fails on papers that no one cares about and have no impact.
Citation needed? This kind of studies is sometimes used to justify legislation that affects your life too, so yeah, I'd say it's kind of a big deal.

>Peer review however works extremely well on papers with a real interest to the community. They are reviewed by more reviewers, the reviewers are more qualified, they spend more time and effort reviewing the paper, and even if some errors remain when the paper is published, so many people will try to reproduce the results and understand everything that they will find out that there are errors, and the scientific community will listen to them.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2074067,00.html

>So again, yes, peer-review can fail. No, it's not a problem.
>"It can fail, but it'll never fail! Trust me, I'm a scientist."
This is exactly what I was talking about.

>I never implied that.
You didn't, the other guy did. The tone of your posts was pretty much the same, so I don't care.

[Anonymous No.3991229]

>>3991191
All I did with my first two posts was denounce the blind trust put in the peer-review process, how is it my fault that you chose to read between the lines and jump to conclusions?

>You're opposing a kind of rigid idolization of peer review that no one here is even defending, or arguing for.
Then you agree with me?

[Anonymous No.3991267]

PEER REVIEW IS PROVEN TO BE FAILED THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS FALSE AND CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE

/thread

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991281]

>>3991229
>how is it my fault that you chose to read between the lines and jump to conclusions?
Huh? I was faulting you for your arrogant reaction, which really was uncalled for, given that there was no way to understand your position properly from the two throwaway remarks you had posted. You didn't explain yourself properly and then acted as if we're all just too retarded to get you.

>Then you agree with me?
On that specific point? Absolutely.

[Anonymous No.3991286]

>>3991229
Strawman. Nobody places blind trust in peer-reviewing. It's just a very large shitfilter. You'd be surprised how much shit gets submitted. One cannot avoid some diarrhea leaking through sometimes, but that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates of the sewer.

[Anonymous No.3991313]

If you want a career as a scientist don't fake your research. There are numerous cases of scientists lying and making up results but they get caught and loose it all. Their careers as scientists are over. The peer-review process is not supposed to detect all of the clever fakers. Stapel has no career now.
"Ik heb gefaald als wetenschapper, als onderzoeker" Stapel

[Anonymous No.3991335]

>>3991281
I'm arrogant for expecting people to not deliberately misinterpret my words? Okay then. I'm an arrogant fuck. Happy?

>>3991286
>Strawman.
Umm, no. Learn what a "strawman" is, kiddo.
>Nobody places blind trust in peer-reviewing.
This is your opinion and I respect it, but my own experience tells me you're fucking wrong.
>One cannot avoid some diarrhea leaking through sometimes, but that doesn't mean we should open the floodgates of the sewer.
Now that's a strawman. I never said "let's do away with the peer-review process", so you're arguing a strawman. See, you learned something new today. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing.

>>3991313
You seem to be assuming that everyone who ever faked his research eventually got caught. I doubt that's the case.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991339]

>>3991267
This is kind of what annoys me about these scandals (in addition to the problem itself, that is). The paranormal crowd is inevitably going to distort this to prop up their own shoddy research.

"Why, no, my study on dog telekinesis is not peer-reviewed, but that's just an arbitrary, unreliable hurdle anyway."

[Anonymous No.3991345]

Actually, this is comforting. Could you imagine if this was discovered but it was kept quiet?
This is just another example of science correcting itself for its own good and admitting to it.

[Atwill !kelPcGZQlE No.3991351]

>>3991335
>I'm arrogant for expecting people to not deliberately misinterpret my words?
No, I've already told you in great detail why I think you were being arrogant. Twice, in fact. I'm not even trying to use this against your position, or anything. It just annoyed me; that's all. Let us let it go.

>Happy?
Yes, but that's unrelated to our exchange. I'm having my pug lick my balls at the moment.

[Anonymous No.3991354]

>>3991345

[Anonymous No.3991372]

>>3991335
You were angry that scientist blindly trust peer reviews. I point out that they don't. Also, I never said you wanted to do away with peer reviewing, I was just pointing out the fact that it's a useful filter.

Seriously, though, I've never heard someone reason: "it's peer reviewed so it must be true". At best, I've heard "it's peer reviewed so I won't simply discard it".

[op No.3991394]

>>3991372
Your unashamed sophism is making me sick. I'm out of here.

[Anonymous No.3991412]

>>3991170
>I never implied that. I meant that when it fails, it fails on papers that no one cares about and have no impact. I can publish a paper full of shit if I publish it in a low quality "letters" journal. It won't harm anyone and it won't do me much good.
The guy published in Science. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.3991493]

>>3991092
>So much for the peer-review dogma.

>so much for psychology is real

[Anonymous No.3991507]

>>3991493
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/jan-hendrik-schon-loses-his-phd.html
>so much for physics is real