Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:14:12 UTC No. 16261867

>>16261748
reminder that any blind study can never be trusted

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:15:33 UTC No. 16262593

Actually kind of surprising the fraction mentioned is 1/3, I'd have guessed something closer to 100% given that academia is an entirely corrupted and morally bankrupt institution

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 12:57:11 UTC No. 16262785

>>16261748
>As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control
Is this what they really think? Reproduction is the scientific quality control. Peer review is quality control of form: grammar, argument, etc.
Where direct reproduction is difficult or impossible, meta analysis could also act as scientific quality control.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:57:21 UTC No. 16262820

I don't think that proves that strong of a conclusion even if this data is the opposite of what you would expect.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 15:04:12 UTC No. 16262892

>>16262820
I think the data is exactly what I would expect, namely my guess is that people who are subject to experiments like this simply act more critically towards the material. Especially in a highly niche field where reviewers may just not be used to that sort of thing. Like if your boss asks you to review this mystery paper that's double sekrit today then at least I think
I would be more critical of that. Also depending on how they select which papers to double blind there could simply be a correlation vs causation error, namely that single blinded paper from a famous scientist may be more likely to be accepted (and perhaps added to the single blind pile in the first place) because of it's higher quality and not because it's so unfair while low quality spam may be thrown into the double blind pile.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 19:57:08 UTC No. 16263195

>>16262820
OP is a lying sack of shit. The study does not claim this.

>Results: Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011–2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate—around 20% higher—of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.
Conclusions

>Conclusions: Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.

Oh yeah, OP also forgot to mention that the publications in question are six fisheries "science" journals.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 06:56:45 UTC No. 16263957

>>16263195
>the publications in question are six fisheries "science" journals.
you'll find the same is true in any other field

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 08:52:39 UTC No. 16264077

>>16263957
[citation needed]
Also the paper doesn't even remotely conclude what you are claiming.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 12:23:03 UTC No. 16264236

>>16264077
How should he know? He never read it.

Anonymous at Tue, 2 Jul 2024 23:22:36 UTC No. 16265136

>>16264077
>the paper doesn't even remotely conclude what you are claiming.
yes it does

Anonymous at Wed, 3 Jul 2024 17:42:14 UTC No. 16266273

>>16261748
>at least a third of academic publications
100% of academic publications are fake. People in academia are useless so they need to tell lies in order to justify their existence. Anyone who isn't useless ends up outside of academia

Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 05:50:53 UTC No. 16267269

>>16263195
"peer review processes need improvement" is just a polite PC way of saying obvious collusion is rampant
its similar to calling the massive epidemic of outright fraud and lying in scientific publications "the replication crisis" as if its all a big accident

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:50:47 UTC No. 16268490

>>16264236
you never read it and you can't do math so you wouldn't understand the numerical content even if you did read it

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 00:37:01 UTC No. 16269740

are there any reasonable explanations for higher rejections rates with increased levels of anonymity other than collusion? "oy vey it was just a coincidence" isn't a reasonable explanation

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:16:47 UTC No. 16270836

>>16269740
No, collusion is the only way to explain it.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 18:23:15 UTC No. 16271746

>science journal retracts 10 papers for compromised peer review
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/02/food-science-journal-retracts-10-papers-for-compromised-peer-review/

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:00:56 UTC No. 16273158

>>16271746
More evidence that the only articles which have not yet been retracted are the ones that don't get significant scrutiny.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 22:40:12 UTC No. 16275165

>>16262820
The data is as expected, the only surprise is that the magnitude of cheating revealed isn't as severe as one would predict

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:23:23 UTC No. 16276288

>>16275165
>the magnitude of cheating revealed
this is only the magnitude of cheating revealed by comparing the results of peer reviews with different levels of anonymity, its not an all encompassing measure of academic fraud, its only a proof that some collusion between authors and reviews is commonplace

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:24:17 UTC No. 16276289

>>16271746
>food science
of course lol

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:47:00 UTC No. 16276909

>>16276289
theres tons of retractions in every discipline, they're all just a corrupt and dishonest as the one in that headline, goyslop science just happened to be the one that made retraction watch's headlines this week

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:21:14 UTC No. 16277472

>>16261748
Some high-profile scientists get their names in everything. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their names and their prestigious institutes also significantly helped their manuscripts get through peer review.

But another thing to remember is that peer review is just a small part of the process. In many journals, Nature for instance, the editor rejects an order of magnitude more articles than peer-review does.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:45:51 UTC No. 16278287

>>16277472
>the editor rejects an order of magnitude more articles than peer-review does.
and those rejected articles are all rejected because the authors didn't give the editors the proper payoff or because the authors don't have the same alma mater as the editor

Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 04:39:39 UTC No. 16279868

>>16273158
>vainly spend tens of thousands of dollars to get another worthless trash academic article published
>nobody even bothers to read it
imagine being conceited and self obsessed enough to waste your life doing that.

Anonymous at Sun, 14 Jul 2024 06:58:31 UTC No. 16281078

>>16279868
What do you expect from people who devote their lives to trying to pose as geniuses. Theres a massive difference between trying to pose as something and trying to legitimately become that something. The former is trying specifically to not become that something, but only trying to become fake version of that something

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:46:57 UTC No. 16282001

>>16281078
they wouldn't need to do the posturing if they really were what they were trying to pose as

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:55:00 UTC No. 16283310

of course there is tons of collusion and cheating in peer review. each subfield has small handful of people in it and they all meet several times a year at conferences even if its "blind" everyone doing the reviews know who the authors are and they all have "one hand washes the other" deals with each other.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 04:21:49 UTC No. 16284524

>>16283310
Thats how it is in astronomy. Research proposals are peer reviewed, thats how telescope usage is assigned. So everyone knows what everyone else is researching and there is no possibility of legitimately anonymous peer review.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 06:29:50 UTC No. 16286108

>>16284524
its like that in every field, the idea of anonymity in peer review is a farce, everyone knows its a lie

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:04:08 UTC No. 16286451

How do we build a system that avoids this inherent flaw?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:05:35 UTC No. 16286716

>>16270836
What about reputation bias?

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 05:02:33 UTC No. 16288076

>>16286451
Racism, sexism and antisemitism. Thats how the system was built up in the first place back when it functioned.
Shitskins, jews, atheists and women are desperate to take it over because they too stupid to construct their own institutions so their only hope is trying to imitate the accomplishments of white Christians.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 05:08:35 UTC No. 16289263

>>16286108
>everyone knows its a lie
The retarded soiyentism worshippers don't seem to be able to wrap their tiny little minds around the idea

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 06:38:39 UTC No. 16290524

>>16289263
dumb people are dumb, they do dumb things and have dumb beliefs

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 03:38:15 UTC No. 16291768

>>16286716
They're both pretty much the same thing

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:33:18 UTC No. 16292990

>>16261748
>illicit collusion
theres nothing illegal about it, thats why everyone does it. there is no penalty for cheating in academia, cheating is encouraged and rewarded

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 02:52:48 UTC No. 16294273

>>16292990
>cheating is encouraged and rewarded
as long as it's done to promote the desired narratives, but don't get on the wrong side of those narratives, if you do then your cheating will come back to haunt you

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 04:12:12 UTC No. 16295606

>>16294273
>criticize Israel
>suddenly get accused of plagiarism
cohencidences

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 03:02:39 UTC No. 16296855

>>16261748
peer review is a corrupt gay circlejerk, everyone who has any experience with it already knows that

Anonymous at Sat, 27 Jul 2024 04:13:50 UTC No. 16298401

>>16296855
>peer review is a corrupt gay circlejerk
thats by design

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 02:00:01 UTC No. 16299820

>>16298401
"soviet" is Russian for "committee"

Anonymous at Sun, 28 Jul 2024 22:31:41 UTC No. 16301005

>>16266273
Nobody would ever bother publishing useful new information that they learned. Whenever a scientist learns something new and valuable they keep it secret so they can exploit it for personal financial gain. The only thing that ever gets published is useless trash and harmful misinformation