Article <ub2dnWGNJPbW7if7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<ub2dnWGNJPbW7if7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:40:43 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 67
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ub2dnWGNJPbW7if7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v99f89$2lqop$6@dont-email.me>
 <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me> <v9bnc1$2v5g0$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9d36i$3ai4r$1@dont-email.me>
 <1eeeb947-6e8f-40ed-a7e5-37e5f7b28fd4@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="17486"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1eeeb947-6e8f-40ed-a7e5-37e5f7b28fd4@gmail.com>
Bytes: 5874

On 8/12/24 9:56 AM, erik simpson wrote:
> On 8/12/24 6:37 AM, RonO wrote:
>> On 8/11/2024 8:09 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>>   RonO wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peer review has it's flaws, but there is absolutely no doubt that it 
>>>> is the best means we have for giving research it's first pass 
>>>> evaluation.
>>>
>>> It's irredeemably flawed. There needs to be transparency.
>>>
>>> The biggest danger, and it does happen, is good science being killed
>>> off by "Peer Review."
>>
>> You are just delusional.  There are so many journals publishing 
>> similar science that peer review is about the last thing that is going 
>> to kill off good science.  The current situation is that there are 
>> journals damaging the integrity of the science by being paper mills, 
>> and publishing junk if the authors are willing to pay them.
>>
>>>
>>> How to stop it?  Transparency. Let the rejected papers see the light
>>> of day.
>>
>> When I review a paper, I always check the box that gives the journal 
>> the right to name me as one of the reviewers, and to forward my 
>> reviews to other journals if they think that the paper would be better 
>> suited to those journals, when journals have that policy.  My 
>> recollection is that pretty much all journals warn reviewers about 
>> reviewing papers where they have a conflict of interest, and pretty 
>> much all of them have the reviewers claim no conflict.
>>
>> There really are so many journals at this time, that the suppression 
>> that you claim, just doesn't exist.
>>
>> Bad junk gets rejected from all legitimate journals.
>>
>>>
>>>> Peer review can be manipulated (Sternberg and Meyer), and groups of 
>>>> researchers have been exposed for recommending each others papers 
>>>> for peer review (some journals ask the authors to recommend possible 
>>>> peer reviewers in their field).
>>>
>>> Less concerned about bad science making it through. Science is self
>>> correcting. Science is repeatable or it isn't science. We can
>>> reasonably expect garbage to self correct. But the opposite isn't
>>> true. Good science that is kept from seeing the light of day is a
>>> loss to the world.
>>
>> Science is not narrowly focused, and quite dispersed with many 
>> journals publishing similar science.  The fact that science is self 
>> correcting is the reason that you don't have to worry about peer 
>> review.  Things that aren't worth publishing get published all the 
>> time.  They just get buried in the junk pile, and do not get noticed.  
>> My guess is that the rate of rejection is pretty low for most 
>> journals.  I was an associate editor for around a decade (off and on) 
>> since the 1990's, and have reviewed papers from a wide range of 
>> journals, and not just that one, and I have only outright rejected 2 
>> papers, all the rest were sent back for revision, and most were 
>> eventually accepted.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
> Recall that our troll has no knowledge nor interest in science generally.
> 
Yes, I believe this is all about one particular aquatic ape theorist not 
being able to publish in a high-impact journal.