Comments on: Science Editor Quits After Hoax

By: sam

sam — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:14:45 +0000

@JJ

Of course, the humanities is pretty much all made up anyway

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:31:34 +0000

Hemmm, lets go see whats on odograph's site.....

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:27:50 +0000

the You Tube president doesn't need to resign if anyone posts bad science, there.

lol no but hundreds of thousands of liberal teachers should, and publishers, politicians, scientists, and paleontologists,biologist, chemists, astrologers,abortionists,etc etc etc.......

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:21:35 +0000

Man, I've been gulled. I just realized G.A. is a Moby.

ahh, are you saying I'm a great white dick?

By: odograph

odograph — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:56:42 +0000

Heh, that's the difference between scientific journals and YouTube ... the YouTube president doesn't need to resign if anyone posts bad science, there.

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:25:40 +0000

Man, I've been gulled. I just realized G.A. is a Moby.

By: Michael Reynolds

Michael Reynolds — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:47:14 +0000

If I'd known it was this easy to get published I'd have submitted my paper: "The Health Advantages of Whisky, Cigars and a Sedentary LIfestyle."

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:10:57 +0000

The evolution hoax springs to mind......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQnF95h8RFI

By: Tlaloc

Tlaloc — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:41:39 +0000

Oddly, it never seems to happen in the “soft” social sciences,

Sure it does, but the quality of social "science" papers is so low you just can't tell the difference.

By: odograph

odograph — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:31:21 +0000

The Sokal hoax sprang to mind for me too.

FWIW, the thing to remember is that truth matters, and when people hoax in science, they get caught, and are flushed out.

They don't get to publish on and on and on as people operating in a less rigorous framework do.

So anyway this is like any other system of crime and punishment. We know that humans have failings, and so we set up systems to police them. We don't say "bank-robber arrested, validity of the cops and courts questioned." No, the bank-robber demonstrates the need for the cops and courts, just as cheaters reinforce the need for the scientific framework.

By: Paging Alan Sokal

Paging Alan Sokal — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:46:07 +0000

[...] Writes James Joyner: This sort of thing seems to happen every few months, almost invariably in scientific journals with a pay-to-publish policy. Oddly, it never seems to happen in the “soft” social sciences, which engage actual peers to apply actual scrutiny received articles. This, despite the fact that the reviewers are unpaid and it costs nothing but months of agonizing effort and waiting and revising and resubmitting to publish in said journals. [...]

By: J.W. Hamner

J.W. Hamner — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:26:30 +0000

In the biomedical sciences, all journals that I'm aware of have "page charges" to cover the costs of publication (though I don't publish in the really famous journals like NEJM, Science, or Nature so they may be different). $800 dollars is not an exorbitant fee... I think someone in our lab paid around $1500 to publish in IEEE (though they exceeded page limits). These are peer reviewed journals, where reviewers are similarly unpaid, though are expected to return reviews in weeks not months. Of course, I don't know why the journal in question would need $800 if they don't do a print copy. That's pretty sketchy, but otherwise I'm not sure your indictment of "pay-to-publish" holds up.