There really is no meaningful peer review at all

There really is no meaningful peer review at all

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-journals-into-accepting-a-fake-paper-on-midi-chlorians

Excerpt: "If we ever needed a timely reminder that in the world of academic publishing not all scientific journals are created equal, we now have it.

To test just how low the quality bar is for exploitative predatory journals, a prominent neuroscientist has tricked four publications into accepting a totally fake paper about midi-chlorians – the entirely fictional life forms in Star Wars that make 'the force' possible.

Neuroskeptic, a working neuroscientist who anonymously blogs about science for Discover, set up the sting, submitting the nonsensical study to nine scientific journals – only to have four of them accept it.

The journals approached are among those sometimes described as predatory in science circles because they exploit researchers into paying fees to have their papers published in them.

But in this case, three of the publications just went ahead and published the fake paper straight up – clearly not having read or checked it first – even without requiring payment of a fee.

Another, the American Journal of Medical and Biological Research, also accepted the paper, but demanded a $360 fee before publishing it.

The absurd thing, as Neuroskeptic explains, is the average human being would only need about five minutes (or less) with the paper to see that it's entirely bogus and riddled with inexplicable Star Wars references.
 
For a start, it's written by none other than the decidedly fishy-looking Dr Lucas McGeorgeand Dr Annette Kin, and while at a very quick scan it might pass for a chemistry discussion, that's only because Neuroskeptic scraped the content of the Wikipedia page on mitochondrion (real) and reworded it, changing references to midi-chlorian/midichlorian (not so real).

To further make things obvious – just in case any 'peer-reviewers' working for the publications were actually paying attention – Neuroskeptic dropped in entire passages ripped off wholesale from Star Wars, inserting them not-so-subtly into the text.

"Midichlorians-mediated oxidative stress causes cardio-myopathy in Type 2 diabetics. As more fatty acids are delivered to the heart, and into cardiomyocytes, the oxidation of fatty acids in these cells increases," the paper reads, sounding kind of legit and science-y, but then suddenly:

"Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise? I thought not. It is not a story the Jedi would tell you. It was a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midichloria to create life."

If that wasn't enough to twig the peer-reviewers, an admission in the study that the "majority of the text in the current paper" was in fact stolen from Wikipedia surely should have let them know something was up?

But again, nothing – at least not on the part of the journals that accepted the paper.

Some of the other journals who didn't accept the paper did pick up on the Star Wars references, but puzzlingly Neuroskeptic was asked to simply revise the text and resubmit it – including suggestions to revert the spelling of "midichlorians" back to "mitochondria". Really?

As funny as it is to see this dysfunctional peer review process laid bare by such overt fakery, it also highlights a serious breach that hurts science – because the existence of this kind of publishing scam exploits real researchers who are trying to get their work noticed – and brings the whole notion of peer review into disrepute.

"It's just a reminder that at some 'peer reviewed' journals, there really is no meaningful peer review at all," Neuroskeptic explains.

"This matters because scientific publishers are companies selling a product, and the product is peer review."

The 'findings' – such as they are – are reported in the International Journal of Molecular Biology: Open Access, the Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics (PDF), and the American Research Journal of Biosciences."

My comment: What does this tell about quality of science and peer reviewing?
By the way, do you want to be a scientist? You can do your own research by using this generator that creates papers that sound science.

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Previous Sexual Partners Can Influence Another Male's Offspring

Image
Telegony (microchimerism) is not studied by pseudoscientists because it refutes the theory of evolution http://www.theneonnettle.com/features/1006-study-women-store-dna-from-every-male-they-have-sex-with "A new study by the University of Seattle and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has revealed that Women absorb and retain living DNA of every single man they have sex with. When scientists were trying to determine if women who had been pregnant with a son might be more predisposed to diseases usually found in men, then also found in the study that the female brain also absorbs male DNA." "Le Dantec wrote that some farmer told him that once his swine copulated with a boar and their pigs absolutely resembled the father in color. But when the same swine copulated with another boar some pigs of the second farrow still resembled the color of the male pig the swine had copulated first."   http://modernnotion.com/is-telegony-real/ "Scientists believe the phe...
Read more

Early-stage embryos with abnormalities can still develop into healthy babies

Image
Early-stage embryos with abnormalities can still develop into healthy babies http://www.sanger.ac.uk/news/view/early-stage-embryos-abnormalities-can-still-develop-healthy-babies Excerpt: "Abnormal cells in the early embryo are not necessarily a sign that a baby will be born with a birth defect such as Down’s syndrome, suggests new research from the University of Cambridge, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute and the University of Leuven, Belgium. In a study published today (29 March) in the journal Nature Communications, scientists show that abnormal cells are eliminated and replaced by healthy cells, repairing – and in many cases completely fixing – the embryo. Researchers at the Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience at Cambridge report a mouse model of aneuploidy, where some cells in the embryo contain an abnormal number of chromosomes. Normally, each cell in the human embryo should contain 23 pairs of chromosomes (22 pairs of chromosomes and one pair of sex chr...
Read more

DNA methylation is directed by RNA

Image
Cellular differentiation, adaptation and variation of organisms is directed by RNA, not DNA https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24312289_RNA-directed_DNA_methylation_and_demethylation_in_plants Excerpt: "RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) is a nuclear process in which small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) direct the cytosine methylation of DNA sequences that are complementary to the siRNAs. In plants, double stranded-RNAs (dsRNAs) generated by RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 2 (RDR2) serve as precursors for Dicer-like 3 dependent biogenesis of 24-nt siRNAs. Plant specific RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV) is presumed to generate the initial RNA transcripts that are substrates for RDR2. siRNAs are loaded onto an argonaute4-containing RISC (RNA-induced silencing complex) that targets the de novo DNA methyltransferase DRM2 to RdDM target loci." My comment: There are only a few chemical modifications discovered on the DNA and histones; especially methylation and acetylation. But the list o...
Read more