https://twitter.com/mumumouse2/status/1784941806775632370What changes should be made to the peer review process so that the "peers" can't just rubber stamp the papers and let trash like this get published?pic related: "the science" doesn't even try anymore, just copy paste the numbers lol.this kind of low IQ frauds shouldn't even passed the paper writing because it's so apparent. the authors should've realized this kind of fraud is retarded but somehow it made it all the way through peer review.
Only systematic, ring of collusion fraudulent schemes can consistently get this kind of trashes getting published in journals.>Elsevier btw
how many fradulent publication rings like this exist in those journals by the publishers? (Nature, Elservier, Science...)how can I join one?
>>16153432I don't know anything about this kind of research, is there no reason these numbers could be correct?
>>16153462the chance that std of the error bar being the same accross almost a hundred experiments is probably lower than the chance that tomorrow our metastable universe decays into something else entirely.
>>16153432First one is wrong>>16153441I am not exactly sure what is wrong here. The error tolerance should be coming from the testing mechanism. A weight scale will have same tolerance when measuring items of similar weight. In general, calibrated devices are going to have given tolerances for measurements performed.
>>16153432>What changes should be made to the peer review process so that the "peers" can't just rubber stamp the papers and let trash like this get published?Keep shitskins, women, homosexuals, atheists and non-Christians out of the peer review process and it will fix itself overnight
>>16153468>I am not exactly sure what is wrong here. The error tolerance should be coming from the testing mechanism. A weight scale will have same tolerance when measuring items of similar weight. In general, calibrated devices are going to have given tolerances for measurements performed.no that is not the case. the group who is publishing those articles has 170 paper credibly accused and there are already 6 retractions.https://retractionwatch.com/2021/05/14/yep-pretty-slow-nutrition-researchers-lose-six-papers/one of their retracted papers is here, which if you look at table 4, clearly they just got lazy and started copy pasting the std as the other previous table still have fake but plausible std.https://jn.nutrition.org/article/S0022-3166(22)13752-1/pdf
>>16153480lol no, the most profilic fake and fradulent researchers are white males as in retractionwatch leaderboard. also, I don't want to share space with christcucks.
>>16153432Thats some really lame data forgery. I've forged tons of data before, but I've never been that lazy about it. As it turns out, forging data well enough that it looks realistic seems to be more work than getting legitimate data is in most cases.
>>16153487>racism outside of /b/
>>16155761Janny allows that when white are the victim, but don't you dare say the n word
>>161534321. Make peer review mandatory for participation in conferences or submitting articles of your own.2. Offer support for publications that test and verify the results of others. Right now there's very little impetus for people to try and reproduce the work of others, since such replication isn't likely to lead to publication. Most fields could benefit from a "Journal of Replicative Studies" or something to that effect.
>>16157047https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDbpg1nG8Y
>>16153487>the most profilic fake and fradulent researchers are white males as in retractionwatch leaderboard.Are they?
>>16157047People who publish fraudulent research would just demand and get extra grant money to produce fraudulent confirmations of their fraudulent research. The replication crisis isn't a big accident, all of the published frauds are published intentionally
>>16160217>The replication crisis isn't a big accident, all of the published frauds are published intentionallyThe replication crisis is 100% definitely not going to be solved by the people that are causing it, they're dishonest people.
>>16157047>1. Make peer review mandatory for participation in conferences or submitting articles of your own.this is already mandatory in many conferences, for example in CS, but it wouldn't do much because the reviewers and the submitters are in the same community as each other and probably want to cover for their own field.>2. Offer support for publications that test and verify the results of others. Right now there's very little impetus for people to try and reproduce the work of others, since such replication isn't likely to lead to publication. Most fields could benefit from a "Journal of Replicative Studies" or something to that effect.this is quite costly and ineffective, unless a large portions of researchers do replication study, I see this going nowhere. also, people who do replication studies are usually younger researchers who are afraid of ousting more senior researchers will hinder their career.I suggest that each published article should have a replication counter that is big and at the front page of the paper website. papers that has not been replicated by independent should have a big red disclaimer that it hasn't been replicated anywhere.maybe that will nudge the population toward not trusting those research at face value (which they should always do, that's the spirit of science) because IMO probably more than half of current research results are unreliable.
>>16153480This
>>16158887joachim boldt is a negro
>>16162845Usain Bolt's cousin
>>16153432pee'r review? don't mind if i do!
>>16164361>pee-er view
>>16165269imagine being such a mentally ill porno addict that you actually want to watch people shit and piss
>>16153441I found this medium articles about widespread collusion in CS conferences by Chinese authors. it's real lol.https://medium.com/@tnvijayk/potential-organized-fraud-in-acm-ieee-computer-architecture-conferences-ccd61169370dCS researchers don't like to publish in journals so conferences are the most prestige venues.
>>16166362wanting to watch other people have sex is already fucked up enough. >omg that girl is so hot, thats why i want to watch other dudes fuck hercuck logic
>>16153487I used to think you guys didn't actually belive this nonsense and are just out to virtue signal, but I'm not so sure anymore. A lot of libtards seem to genuinly belive things like what you wrote, or that whites are more violent than nigs, or that white supremacy is the biggest threat to america, or any other of the numerous nonsensical left-wing myths.
>>16166660>CS conferencesgay furry cons
>>16167841Thats what happens when gullible morons are brainwashed by ZOG propaganda from birth through to adulthood. People who have no critical thinking ability are incapable of realizing how deceptive their brainwashing has been, instead they have to just accept it at face value, they're not able to do otherwise
>>16153432Cascading retrations, when a paper get retracted, all papers citing it should also be retracted and all papers citing those papers also retracted, etc. You could weed all out most of the soience slop so quickly that way. In the end only a small handful of reliable sources would remain
>>16153432That shit gets published because publishers don't get paid if they reject articles. Academic publishing is just a wing of the vanity press, the only difference between the normal vanity press and academic publishing is that the regular vanity press is at least honest about the fact that the authors are paying in order to publish shit nobody wants to read
