« The shooting of Jemel Roberson | Main | Mance case petition to Supreme Court »
junk science
Posted by David Hardy · 29 November 2018 09:51 AM
Nearly 40% of published scientific studies do not replicate. In other words, they're bogus. That's no news to anyone who has looked at the medical articles on guns and gun control. Here's my Howard Univ. Law Journal article on the subject.
(I've been effectively offline for more than a week, due to a friend being hospitalized).
2 Comments | Leave a comment
I am in the IS field and we do double blind but often you are picked to review because you are experienced in that area so you can usually guess who it is. Part of the problem is the push to publish, nobody cares about the results as long as you publish and get cites which leads to funding.
It's all broken
But you know, PEER REVIEW !!!
However, peer review doesn't involve actually running the experiments and checking the outcome. In most cases, the reviewers know the authors and bias applies ALWAYS.
I worked fro a number of years to get one of my journals to change the review process to double blind. Only the editor would know the authors. All info related to who the authors are and their location would be on a cover sheet with the article void of any information that would allow the reviewer to simply say, "Hey, I know him and his work is good (bad)"