10 Comments

to a layman, the term “peer reviewed” creates the impression that the results have been verified by experts as reproducible … otherwise it’s just salesmanship

Expand full comment

Nice work!

I like your report a lot.

Expand full comment

the other term the doctor uses to try to get you to do a procedure or take a drug is “best practices” &/or “evidence based “ whatever that really means… learning to say no

Expand full comment
Aug 13, 2023Liked by The Underdog

"Science" is a joke now. Peer review means nothing. It's all performance art for grant dollars or advancing the Blob's agenda. Credentialism has ruined us.

Hope you are well, UD, and doing better after your recent loss.

Expand full comment
author

I'm doing better now. We've had the funeral, which I think offers a sense of closure.

I'm slowly getting back on the ball, and trying new approaches. I think article marks a return the prior in-depth investigative style.

Expand full comment
Aug 13, 2023Liked by The Underdog

I'm glad to hear that.

This was what I like, exposing the fraudulent basis of the "experts." Something that may serve you going forward as an article focus. The shrillness over Eris means the COVID theater isn't going away. You could even delve into some of the climate nonsense. A climate crisis would dovetail nicely with another variant surge.

Expand full comment
author

A couple of articles have covered the topic:

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/why-global-warming-is-scam

https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/not-climate-change-it-is-arson

There's evidence the Hawaii fires are likely arson too, however it isn't sufficient enough depth of a topic to dedicate an article to (yet).

Expand full comment

This website is interesting.

Retraction Watch - Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/

Expand full comment

I find this exaggerated. As a reviewer you don't have time to review the raw data, you scarely have time to perform this unpaid work full stop. Journals should insist that access be given to the raw data, and in my experience they often do, perhaps even mostly now. It's not credible to state that most authors are not able to provide their data. That said, there is enough pollution by cheating authors (the 15% quoted from a survey is disturbing) to undermine the system. In my view reviewing should be paid work, then it would be reasonable to insist on at least some oversight of the data.

Expand full comment
author

"As a reviewer you don't have time to review the raw data"

Having spoken with other peer reviewers, they comment most reviewers don't even bother to ask for a copy of the raw data (regardless of whether they review it or not).

One said the best way to filter fraudulent papers is to simply ask for a copy of the raw data (regardless of whether or not they intended to review it), in their view a majority (roughly ~60%) dropped out or withdrew the submission, simply because they couldn't produce the data.

"It's not credible to state that most authors are not able to provide their data"

It is very credible, given it ironically comes from a study. The burden is on you to prove to the contrary that the majority provide raw data. In-fact your statement reinforces the fact it isn't asked for.

"Journals should insist that access be given to the raw data, and in my experience they often do, perhaps even mostly now."

I think you're using unevidenced gross generalisations based on a perception. I've encountered far too many papers with no underlying raw data provided. Prime example: a paper claiming to cover vaccine miscarriages *redacted* the table fields and raw data (it wasn't just removed; the authors *censored* and *hid* it): https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/105100066/also-redacted-tables-for-some-reason

"it would be reasonable to insist on at least some oversight of the data"

I don't think payment should be a requisite for integrity. Should volunteers commit crimes and perpetuate fraud just because they're volunteers?

The issue with paying reviewers is a complex, messy issue, which this article isn't primarily about, but it'd raise questions of:

1) Who pays the reviewers, and wouldn't the financiers have undue influence (like every other funded regulatory capture system)?

1a) If it's paid by the government, won't they just agree with government positions? (E.G. climate change)

1b) If it's paid for by the journal/paper, won't they just be more inclined to conform to what the journal/paper wants? (Which in this case, are fraudulent papers that are clickbait and sell subscriptions)

1c) If it's by the submitter, won't the submitter just pay reviewers who generally approve their papers (I.E. 'shop around' and only go to journals that have reviewers who publish their work)?

1d) Risks of financial conflicts of interest if wages/bonuses/gifts/tax deductibles get thrown around?

2) How much do they get paid, and is it per quota?

3) Would it result in poaching by papers/journals, crippling the competition? Especially in fields that are extremely niche/specialist and have only a handful of reviewers?

4) What's to stop lacklusture/fraudulent review from happening even *if* paid? The time argument still applies whether one is paid or not.

Expand full comment