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.

 

Hundreds of papers with bogus peer review to be retracted...

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outerlimits13
I remember 10-15 years ago.. it was a joke that if you could somehow link whatever your research was, to global warming, you could get funding easy. Now look at where we are with all “undeniable evidence” of the climate emergency and “overwhelming consensus.”
what a crock.. I wonder how many of these papers are climate change related..



Spot on!

Science is not based on consensus but on facts and evidence.

The consensus could be corrupted by politics, financial interests, and ideologies.

As for the climate change ideology it worths the effort to watch one of the most remarkable scientists and theoretical physicists, Freeman Dyson, obliterating this ludicrous ideology.

Here: youtu.be...
edit on 13-10-2022 by Asmodeus3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Give em a break guys they were probably moving at "the speed of science"



posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: pureblood69
Give em a break guys they were probably moving at "the speed of science"


Outstanding comment!



posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lemon1234
Shouldn't the govt sue to get the taxpayers money back?

The government was behind their fair share of it. They would have to sue themselves.



posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Sad but true...

Until human kind has a quantum leap forward in our nature, or Christ returns, it will always be so. The ones who set the rules have no overseers, and they have determined that their troughs will remain full. If anyone who has the ability to draw attention objects, they exploit the darker side of human nature, and pay them off. There are a few that won't take their blood money, but those who will outnumber them greatly.

I suppose that if enough normal people stood together, we could accomplish something, but those who set the rules and have no overseers have done a phenomenal job of dividing the normal people. We are so busy hating back and forth along every possible fissure and crack. As we fight each other, the ground we all stand on shakes apart under our feet, while those who set the rules and have no overseers get rich.



posted on Oct, 13 2022 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Science has been corrupted somewhat for years, but it is getting worse over the last five years. Peer review often adds or subtracts things to make it acceptable to the consensus of the time in science. This changes the research to match present beliefs of the scientific community it is related to.

These scientists reviewing stuff do not want their peers being discredited for their present knowledge, so tweak the research papers to lessen the impact on their fellow scientists...sometimes distorting the research somewhat to make it acceptable to their field of science..



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
Science has been corrupted somewhat for years, but it is getting worse over the last five years. Peer review often adds or subtracts things to make it acceptable to the consensus of the time in science. This changes the research to match present beliefs of the scientific community it is related to.

These scientists reviewing stuff do not want their peers being discredited for their present knowledge, so tweak the research papers to lessen the impact on their fellow scientists...sometimes distorting the research somewhat to make it acceptable to their field of science..


This is something that says we have a HUGE problem in Academia. Honest debates are squelched. That ends Science and creates a religion, and it uses tyranny to rule over dissent. The importance of our 1st Amendment to prevent such behavior that stomps out debate can't be stressed enough. No wonder the "fact checkers" lie. It is to protect the other lies. It is getting really hard for them to know what day their lie is in anymore, and they slip up. It is so bad now they don't care that some of us are on to their tactics.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I just wondered what if this is AI at work, and they only now realized those were all AI generated papers...



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 04:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


It is so bad now they don't care that some of us are on to their tactics.


I'm pretty confident that it's so bad because more and more are onto their tactics and they do care.

They know the jig is up and what we see are the measurements to prevent it.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: MaxxAction

I hate to break the news to you, but a LoT of those articles are Autogenerated somewhere about 5,000 a day.

If you don't believe it can be done, take a look at stock articles that are generated. Often one good and one bad, motley fool is popular for this method of selling their business so they are "always right" when referring to an article.

But I remember in tony fauchis emails he admitted that NIH bots were printing 5,000 a day. Sadly no source for you, so you would have to dig yourself. But if you access his leaked emails you can find it easy by searching keyword article. He even praised it, as it was allowing the real data to be hidden. (In my opinion that was probably one of the most disgusting release factor)

A couple years ago there was two (brothers?/guys) that created an auto-program that would post 50,000 a day and add to these science forums. They got paid big money for it too.

(Again I never saved the source didn't seem important back then anyway - before covid lockdowns).
edit on bFridayam2022-10-14T06:45:02-05:00kamFri, 14 Oct 2022 06:45:02 -0500Fri, 14 Oct 2022 06:45:02 -050020225 by BlackArrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Why is this thread in the Diseases and Pandemic forum since medical articles are not mentioned being included in the retractions?



The vast majority – 463 articles – are from the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, while 21 are from IOP Conference Series: Materials Science & Engineering, and 10 are from IOP Conference Series: Earth & Environmental Science
Source



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Outerlimits13
I remember 10-15 years ago.. it was a joke that if you could somehow link whatever your research was, to global warming, you could get funding easy. Now look at where we are with all “undeniable evidence” of the climate emergency and “overwhelming consensus.”
what a crock.. I wonder how many of these papers are climate change related..



In the 80's I was in the Navy. Our squadron had a pilot with a degree in Sociology. He was joking about putting in a request for funding for a made up project. Goofing off we helped him draw up a proposal to study the "Mating Habits of the South Florida Beach Bunny". As a joke his roommate sent in the proposal. A few months later he gets a letter from the National Science Foundation telling him that he had been awarded a $950,000 grant for his proposal. He panicked and sent off a letter declining the grant. I still said that he should have done the research and wrote the paper. I'd have volunteered to have been a test subject.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: DirtWasher

I think its because members think all the papers will be about how covid is dangerous and vaccines are safe and they will be proved right about their beliefs that its the other way round.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Well, if that were the case, if I understand your comment correctly, then why not find the fraudulent medical articles and post those links instead of physics and engineering articles?



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DirtWasher

Many of the studies that claimed masks were effective at slowing the transmission of COVID would be under Physics and Engineering.

I had people tell me that I was full of it when I stated that masks were useless, because I didn't have a degree in Medicine or Microbiology. I told them that once that virus laden droplet hits the air, it becomes a Physics problem.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DirtWasher

Because:

“It’s very dangerous. A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science.”

Dr. (cough, cough, gag) Anthony Fauci

J/K. Sorta..

We have been told over and over during all of this mess to follow or trust "the science." Science is not above being corrupted like everything else has been, which has been blindingly obvious during the "pandemic" and with everything to do with the "pandemic." If the average person had any idea how much science has become a commodity that is sold to the highest bidder, they may think differently about where we find ourselves.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: MaxxAction

Science these days follows the "Golden Rule". The "Rule" is "Those that have the gold, make the rules." Is it any coincidence that "Global Warming" was pushed so hard when Gore was the Vice President? The duties of the Vice President include being head of the National Science Foundation and NASA. During COVID the "follow the science" schtick was a political tool used by the Liberal Socialists to bring down Trump. If you were doing research, the easiest way to ensure funding was to go along with the mantra.



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MaxxAction
Thank you so much for this tread OP

You know it was on this very site certain posters were willing to live and die on "peer review" scientific papers.
I laughed at them, because just like many things in life they all support each other on what "they" believe to be true.
Basically one big scientific echo chamber.

When others or myself put up certain quotes from books or articles, they ridiculed them because they didn't have the all mighty stamp of the "peer review".

It feels good to be right after all these years, but I feel bad for all the people who fell victim to all this scientific propaganda.
edit on 14-10-2022 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Let's see... where exactly are we at now?
  • Politics: corrupted
  • Elections: corrupted
  • Judiciary: corrupted
  • Prison system: corrupted
  • Religion: corrupted
  • Media: corrupted
  • Medicine: corrupted
  • Science: corrupted
  • Internet: corrupted
  • Education: corrupted
And the bad thing is, I am not even surprised. I recently was in a thread where the idea of "peer review" being something that happens before a paper is published was advanced. I, along with others, tried desperately to explain that "peer review" was when others (peers) read the paper and reviewed it; the editorial review, which can include a paid, superficial peer review, was what happened before the paper was published.

In the end, I don't think anyone listened. Nope, editors do peer review, peers don't do anything, and that's the way it is supposed to work. At one point in the discussion, I went to the IEEE website and checked up on what was involved (primarily looking for financial costs to satisfy my curiosity) and even IEEE at one point referenced "peer review" as part and parcel of the editorial review (which they just referred to as a "review").

Et tu, IEEE?

Science polices itself by peers reviewing papers independently. That way (theoretically at least), any papers which do not withstand rigorous technical muster are quickly discovered as such by other researchers and the authors are quickly banned from presenting papers for publication if it gets bad enough. Those that are accurate are reviewed, the studies and/or experiments duplicated, and are verified independently.

When "peer review" became a part and parcel of the editorial review, that all went out the window. There is now no one policing science except those who profit from publishing what the public expects to hear.

Editors can have political agendas. That's why peer review was always supposed to be by those who actually do research. Editors review for grammar, structure, and obvious defects in logic, not for scientific accuracy. And when they can pay "peers" to review for scientific accuracy as well, there is no reason for anyone else to try to peer review a paper. Any review that does not meet the editor's politics will likely be rejected and they will have wasted their time.

We have destroyed everything that was ever good about the United States of America, and much of the rest of the planet.



a reply to: loam


It's getting to the point where if it all burned to the ground, I'd assess the overall loss as less than I might have otherwise.

There's a silver cloud to every lining, I suppose. It will all burn to the ground, and soon. So we won't have lost much as a society.

Watch Romania.

TheRedneck

edit on 10/14/2022 by TheRedneck because: I mistakenly used the wrong post as a reference. My apologies to Lemon1234 and loam.

edit on 10/15/2022 by TheRedneck because: I missed an area of corruption. Thanks, ManBehindTheMask!



posted on Oct, 14 2022 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Dead on as always old friend, dead on........

They have sucessfully infiltrated every single aspect as per their objective, to accomplish EVERYTHING that they need.

The irony is that its because of the internet and connectivity that they have used as a weapon, that we have a way to get out the truth and communicate with each other to spread that, Most of the time admittedly being shut down in the process, but we can STILL do so to an extent

If it werent for that we would absolutely def dumb and blind to what is happening

But they sure are trying to make that happen as hard as possible

I am ABSOLUTEY certain this is why social medial sites like Facebook are just BEGGING to be managed by the government




top topics



 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join