It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific journals accept papers at random

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Experimenters submitted to 12 leading journals 12 papers published in the very same journals 2 years ago. Experimenters changed the names and addresses of the authors and slightly altered titles and abstracts. Only 3 journals smelled the rat. Out of remaining 9 papers 1 was accepted and 8 rejected. The result is consistent with the hypothesis that the editors accept papers at random.

ecclesiastes911.net...
edit on 8-2-2018 by vernichter because: "/" in "accept/reject" dissappeared in the title




posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
articles are sometimes rejected because they go against consensus of the time. I guess that the beliefs of some people running the journal trump truth sometimes. Re-titling an article can help, also sometimes the title is not accepted if one exists with the identical name.

Yes, sometimes articles are denied for unknown reasons and then retitled and reauthored. Not every article in a journal is real.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter
Experimenters submitted to 12 leading journals 12 papers published in the very same journals 2 years ago. Experimenters changed the names and addresses of the authors and slightly altered titles and abstracts. Only 3 journals smelled the rat. Out of remaining 9 papers 1 was accepted and 8 rejected. The result is consistent with the hypothesis that the editors accept papers at random.

ecclesiastes911.net...
The author didn't get the memo that psychology is not a science. Those weren't scientific journals, they were psychology journals, so maybe this has nothing at all to do with scientific papers and everything to do with psychology not being a science?

Why psychology isn't science

That's right. Psychology isn't science.

Why can we definitively say that? Because psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter
Experimenters submitted to 12 leading journals 12 papers published in the very same journals 2 years ago. Experimenters changed the names and addresses of the authors and slightly altered titles and abstracts. Only 3 journals smelled the rat. Out of remaining 9 papers 1 was accepted and 8 rejected. The result is consistent with the hypothesis that the editors accept papers at random.

ecclesiastes911.net...


That's not a good test. Articles also get rejected if they seem to lack originality. If the "reviewer" thinks he's seen the material before, even if he can't exactly pinpoint the source, he'll reject it as being "too familiar", not fresh enough, doesn't pass his smell test. However, the reviewer should give reasons if asked. So, they'll have to do a more thorough study, and get the reviewers to give written explanations for the rejections.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH
That's not a good test. Articles also get rejected if they seem to lack originality. If the "reviewer" thinks he's seen the material before, even if he can't exactly pinpoint the source, he'll reject it as being "too familiar", not fresh enough, doesn't pass his smell test.

Reviewers rejected the articles not as unoriginal but because of methodological deficiencies, as it is easy to read and to check.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

If you read your link, it's a massive step to conclude "scientific journals accept papers at random". That's not what the study shows at all.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: vernichter


Scientific journals accept papers at random


Not really. I have tried submitting my preon theory and my dark matter discovery to three well-known journals now... They all ignored me pretty thoroughly.

That's because actual science journals (unlike psychology journals) are much rigorous in what they do and don't accept.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter

If you read your link, it's a massive step to conclude "scientific journals accept papers at random". That's not what the study shows at all.

The results of the experiment are perfectly consistent with such hypothesis. Not really a massive step.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
Not really. I have tried submitting my preon theory and my dark matter discovery to three well-known journals now... They all ignored me pretty thoroughly.

In the experiment only one of nine papers was accepted. So your made up example does not contradict it.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter

If you read your link, it's a massive step to conclude "scientific journals accept papers at random". That's not what the study shows at all.

The results of the experiment are perfectly consistent with such hypothesis. Not really a massive step.


So in your mind, targeting a handful of psychology journals means that "scientific journals accept papers at random"?

Utter nonsense, and demonstrably so. Go try this experiment with a journal like, say, Nature, or the New England Journal of Medicine and let us know how you get on.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
So in your mind, targeting a handful of psychology journals means that "scientific journals accept papers at random"?

They are journals, they are scientific, they accept at random/


originally posted by: GetHypedUtter nonsense, and demonstrably so. Go try this experiment with a journal like, say, Nature, or the New England Journal of Medicine and let us know how you get on.

One can't today.


Nature Research is part of Similarity Check, a service that uses software tools to screen submitted manuscripts for text overlap.

www.nature.com...

You are either not very smart or not very honest.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: vernichter

>They are journals, they are scientific, they accept at random/

You need to look into this thing called "sample size".

>You are either not very smart or not very honest.

What exactly is dishonest here? Pick any mid to top tier journal and try submitting any old nonsense and report back.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Scientific journals also said all life was created at random. When unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago.

Science at its very best.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Scientific journals also said all life was created at random. When unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago.

Science at its very best.


Show me a single scientific paper that says "All life was created at random when unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago".

I'll wait.
edit on 11-2-2018 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: turbonium1
Scientific journals also said all life was created at random. When unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago.

Science at its very best.


Show me a single scientific paper that says "All life was created at random when unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago".

I'll wait.


Life on Earth first bloomed around 3.7 billion years ago, when chemical compounds in a "primordial soup" somehow sparked into life, scientists suspect.

www.livescience.com...


Why does life exist?

Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck. But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.


www.scientificamerican.com...


Would you like to see more 'scientific' sources, or does that suffice?

I'll wait.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Now match that up to the quote which i paraphrased.

Details are important.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Scientific journals also said all life was created at random. When unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago.

Science at its very best.

Yes, this is a bit funny. However, your hypothesis is even more ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: vernichter

originally posted by: turbonium1
Scientific journals also said all life was created at random. When unknown slime mixed with unknown glop, and some pond scum, millions of years ago.

Science at its very best.

Yes, this is a bit funny. However, your hypothesis is even more ridiculous.


I see you're not a details person.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: turbonium1

Now match that up to the quote which i paraphrased.

Details are important.


It matches with my comment on what they have claimed about how life was first created.

Glop, etc matches to 'primordial soup'.

Millions of years matches up, as well.


Anything else?



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter

>They are journals, they are scientific, they accept at random/

You need to look into this thing called "sample size".

So look into it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vernichter
>You are either not very smart or not very honest.

What exactly is dishonest here? Pick any mid to top tier journal and try submitting any old nonsense and report back.

I see: you are an honest idiot.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join