PLOS One's shredded credibility
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-03-2016, 11:33 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016 11:36 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
Duplicate

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2016, 11:34 AM (This post was last modified: 08-03-2016 11:45 AM by god has no twitter account.)
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
(08-03-2016 10:46 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  PLoS One is an open-access, pay-to-publish journal. So they published an article which let the god-twerps slip one by them and then the peer-review process kicked in with a vengeance and ripped them a new asshole.

What's the problem? The system worked.

My apologies. I didn't realise that it was an open-access, pay to publish journal with a post-publish peer-review system.

Ready, FIRE, aim then?

Marburg virus, Ebola, Rabies, HIV, Smallpox, Hantavirus, Dengue Fever all brought to you by god - who cares for us and loves us all Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes god has no twitter account's post
08-03-2016, 11:47 AM
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
(08-03-2016 11:28 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(08-03-2016 10:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Irrelevant.

Disagree.

god appearing as a causal agent in a supposed scientific paper should indicate that the paper was written by a wacko and ought to have been trashed immediately. This isn't a case of poor scientific methods, no control population etc. This is pure speculation supported by well, nothing really.

This isn't poor peer review. This is a case of no peer review whatsoever - in which case, why not? If this is what happened, then I agree with you.

If we are saying it was peer reviewed, then it certainly does matter and there is a major difference between Wakefield and the "Hand of god".

Either the process caught an error or the process did not catch an error. The process is, from that perspective, content-agnostic. Just because you feel it's a "worse" mistake, doesn't matter in the slightest.

PLOS-ONE is outright intended to have minimal pre-publication review. This has benefits and drawbacks. As I said, errors are inevitable.

(08-03-2016 11:28 AM)god has no twitter account Wrote:  
(08-03-2016 10:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The article in question was also retracted[/i]. That is about all, procedurally, the editorial board can do.

True. However, was it retracted because of the public outcry or was it retracted because there had been a genuine mistake where someone hadn't done his job either at all or in a sloppy manner?

In addition, why were so-called scientists putting such papers forward to a scientific journal?

Because there was also actual science in the paper. It wasn't high-level stuff, but it was a review of biomechanics. The problem was in the editorialising discussion.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
08-03-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
Presented for further consideration: a comment directly from one of the authors:
Ming-Jin Liu Wrote:“We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks”.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
08-03-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
Oh dear.... the creatards will now invent a whole scenario where the Red Chinese held a gun to her head and made her say those nasty things about fucking jesus.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2016, 03:49 PM
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
(08-03-2016 03:43 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Oh dear.... the creatards will now invent a whole scenario where the Red Chinese held a gun to her head and made her say those nasty things about fucking jesus.

Turns out that an ESL review panel for an ESL article didn't catch a problematic translation of idiom, but I'm sure the Discovery Institute will make it all about them somehow...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-03-2016, 04:18 PM
RE: PLOS One's shredded credibility
Fer sure!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: