Faked Peer Reviews

[Kaere]

Hmm... can't trust anyone, it seems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

[Rockhopper]

Sadly so Ka which is why I say often always check your sources. Who wrote what, who said what about the subject and where it was said.

Research your data yourself thoroughly, when there is a suspicion that any review is at odds, then check up on the reviewer to find out if what they are saying is true of if they can be believed.

Tim.

[Kaere]

Seems to me that there's no point to having peer reviews at all then... if you are going to do your own work on it anyway. Not that everyone has the skills or know-how to be able to dissect a paper.

Basically this tells me we can't trust the world of science at all. It's no better or worse than any other person making claims.

[Lenzabi]

I had just enough medical background to recognize the fakery in the two example titles near the end of the article. IF quality of papers and information drops, then all of our world is at risk of misleading and also deliberate forgeries, that they even had papers using names of people who had not even written the papers shows major issues.

So a new sham business of making peer reviews from Taiwan and China.

[Rockhopper]

You misunderstood what I was trying to say Ka. One doesn't have to be a Rocket Scientist to work out whether the review(s) are accurate. Most Journals name the reviewers and it behoves the reader to research the person doing the review.

It doesn't stop some slipping through but it's the best way of backing an author's hypothesis. Like any function it has it's faults but it has to work for the time being until something better is developed.

The problem with the Internet is that it gives a voice to all and sundry, factual or not.

Tim.

[Sponsored content]