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: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: ChatGPT contributing to current science papers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:56:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 124
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v9igi9$g9l8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v98m8k$ttm6$1@dont-email.me> <v9arsc$2q87g$1@dont-email.me>
 <v9d36i$3ai4r$1@dont-email.me> <li17ruF1hqvU1@mid.individual.net>
 <v9g6eu$3vnpk$3@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="84286"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Z0JPyB1YbsK2jZ0H7NfBEtB9BVw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v9g6eu$3vnpk$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 8166

On 8/13/2024 12:51 PM, JTEM wrote:
>   Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 
>> Of course, but you're using it in its correct well established sense.
> 
> You're a religious fundy. Literally.
> 
> "As it is written, so shall it be!"
> 
> No, you FuckTard, "Peer Review" is a shoddy system that protects the
> status quo. Academia requires publishing, status -- JOBS -- depend
> on it and "Peer Review" is all about that. It is NOT about blazing
> new trails. In fact, that's the surest method of NOT being published!
> 
> The demographics, the "vectors" for AIDS and hepatitis were so closely
> aligned that before it was even possible to screen for AIDS they
> screened for hepatitis and claimed an 80% or better success rate of
> stopping AIDS. Well...
> 
> Right BEFORE the AIDS crisis, in the mid to late 70s, a hepatitis
> vaccine was created specifically for gay men. And that vaccine used
> antibodies taken from gay men. THAT vaccine used material from Chimps
> to grow it and it is literally impossible for it to not have spread
> AIDS. It was impossible for it to NOT have spread AIDS. Because if
> AIDS already existed, they took antibodies from people who were
> (roughly) 80% likely to be infected, and gave it to sexually active
> people who were not. And if AIDS was NOT already present, the fact
> that they used simian material to grow it -- the source of SIVS, the
> precursor to AIDS -- is what introduced the virus.
> 
> Show me any "Peer Review" work that was published within 25 years of
> that vaccine, talking about this.
> 
> Show me the "Peer Review" work on the African oral vaccine as an
> extremely likely (and pretty much impossible to not be) source of
> AIDS in the Congo within 30 years of the vaccine program.
> 
> I read TONS of junk pieces published in "Peer Reviewed" oh so
> scientific journals that supposedly debunked such claims. None of
> them so much as addressed what was being said but, you know, they're
> only scientists so they were too busy doing science to get it right...

You do realize that you are admitting that the bogus junk that you claim 
is being kept out by peer review must be worse than the peer reviewed 
bogus junk.

Ron Okimoto

> 
> GWOBULL WARBLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> And what gets me, what convinces anyone with a brain just how utterly
> devoid of worth you are is that nothing I'm saying is news to you....
> 
> Turn back the clock to the Dubya Bush years when people were actually
> AVOIDING evolution, trying to stay away from the topic, because their
> grant money would dry up and they couldn't get published...
> 
> Rent:  A Flock of Dodos to discover what you used to know, when it
> was politically popular to know it.
> 
> Shithead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> JTEM is using it in the trashy sense used by junk journals to tell you 
>> that their publcations are peer reviewed.
>>
>>>   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
>>
>>
>