Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Fake peer reviews using the names of real scientists.
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:21:59 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <viqkm7$14e0j$1@dont-email.me>
References: <viq4em$10ou4$2@dont-email.me> <viq6ao$119o6$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@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="7406"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uV+7baN4l8Vj9HnFo1JpmGV0IqU=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 35DA4229782; Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:22:11 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2596229765
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Wed, 04 Dec 2024 17:22:08 -0500 (EST)
	by pi-dach.dorfdsl.de (8.18.1/8.18.1/Debian-6~bpo12+1) with ESMTPS id 4B4MM33r1604721
	(version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT)
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Wed, 4 Dec 2024 23:22:04 +0100
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE2B5F8F5
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Wed,  4 Dec 2024 22:22:00 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/ECE2B5F8F5; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id 81819DC01A9; Wed,  4 Dec 2024 23:22:00 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 23:22:00 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <viq6ao$119o6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+IIEV4OtIYWbScXH0c0Q5syRtZnGVJe6s=
	FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 5839

On 12/4/2024 12:16 PM, JTEM wrote:
>   RonO wrote:
> 
>> https://www.science.org/content/article/it-felt-very-icky-scientist-s- 
>> name-was-used-write-fake-peer-reviews
>>
>> Getting your buddies to review your paper is bad enough, but some 
>> "scientists" are faking peer reviews and signing other peoples names 
>> to them.  This seems to be a new low, and means that those involved 
>> are not interested in producing any valid science.
> 
> "Peer Review" has been refuted time and time again. You've got to STOP
> pretending that it's anything other than a filter to keep out the
> uncredentialed, the unpopular and those who offend the political powers.

You just do not know what you are talking about.  Most of the time the 
reviewer isn't given the names of the authors of the paper, so it isn't 
up to them to determine if the person qualifies as a scientist or not. 
The work has to speak for itself.  In Poultry genetics there is the 
example where a person that was not a biologist started publishing 
genetic results that he was generating in his backyard.  Look up W. 
Clive Carefoot.  He published from the 1980's into this century.

He ended up publishing a lot of work that funding agencies were not 
funding because they were not "important" enough or did not have 
application interests.  Fellow backyard breeders appreciated his work a 
lot because no one else was doing the type of research that would help 
them out.

If your work is sound and conclusions reasonable from that work it can 
get published even if the research is considered not to be relevant to 
the funding agencies.  You just have to add something to the science. 
Sturtevant got published in Science (the Journal) for work that he did 
in his backyard before he became an undergraduate student at Columbia 
and started working in Morgan's lab.  Sturtevant went on to develop 
linkage mapping.  It was something that should have gotten him the Nobel 
prize.  Nearly all the causative polymorphism were discovered using 
linkage mapping.  The first breast cancer genes were identified that 
way.  It is a major means to identify genes associated with muscular 
dystrophy and any other genetic disease that have had causative variants 
identified.

Ron Okimoto

> 
> That's all it's fall.
> 
> The true sadness is Peer Review is that we only ever see the shit that
> passes through it. We rarely if ever see the proper science that gets
> rejected.
> 
> One example I can think of was a letter on the topic of the Oral Vaccine
> Theory on the origins of AIDS. It was from a properly credentialed
> scientist who was an expert in his field and performed research, but it
> rubbed the powers-that-be the wrong way.
> 
> It also bucked the official narrative at that time, which was that the
> theory was all the brain child of a writer, a journalist and not any
> scientists...
> 
> I'm not saying abandon Peer Review. What I'm saying is that everyone
> needs to grab a clue:  The science, THE DEBATE begins with publication.
> 
> Morons have it backwards and think that the publication ends debate.
> 
> "It was published in a Peer Reviewed journal. You can't question it!"
> 
> No, YOU CAN AND YOU SHOULD question it!
> 
> 
>