What Would We Do Without Peer Review?

You don’t say: While we don’t think that the initial claim–a quarter of cancer research is fake–is accurate, the fact that it’s closer to one in eight should still be troubling.

12 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

One in eight is “troubling”?!
The British still have a habit of understatement,which is often admirable, but not in this instance.

The question becomes this: If we find this in “cancer research”, then to what degree does it appear in other “research”?
Since “cancer research” is likely no different in its behaviour than any other “research”, may I suggest 1 in 4 for ALL research?
Indeed, what does this say about that one of the most politically-driven research fields of them all, that is, the so-called settled science of anthropogenic global warming?

That would suggest that it is political science rather than natural science.

Yes,Ken, this is undoubtedly a “tip of the iceberg” type of thing,if the corruption is that bad in a relatively benign field, we can only imagine how bad it must be in a highly politicized field such as climate “science”.

Gary D.; You have stated the probable well. My only thought for an addition is what has the standard(s) lowering impacts of the baby-boomer generation have in reductions of peer-reducing credobility?

Seems that research and fundraising are the same thing these days .

Whereas in climate “science”, about 1 in 40 does NOT contain faked data.

According to warmists, getting it wrong is science reality, so, therefore proves them right. That’s life right, when your predictions are wrong, that’s to be expected, so they’re still “accurate.” Remind me again, where else but in “climate science” is that the case? The fact they’re wildly wrong and proponents slimed anybody who suggested climate models might not be accurate, being unproven &/or invalidated. It’s apparently OK to fix the math or get is abysmally wrong when your cause is just, especially if you’re a warmist rent seeker.
Thinking makes some peoples’ heads hurt and anyway math is especially hard when you can’t put CO2 on a weigh scale. I sometimes wonder if they just make it up when they say they’ll tax carbon so much “per tonne.” Kind of gives me the willies.

This is one of the reasons I do NOT give a nickel to any charities whatsoever. Most families have members in need … that is where charity should reside.