5,984
edits
Peer Review: Difference between revisions
ââ2020
| Line 189: | Line 189: | ||
=== 2020 === | === 2020 === | ||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230889296900452353 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=So ... Forgive me. Wouldnât that call Peer Review into question then? | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | {{Tweet | ||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |image=Eric profile picture.jpg | ||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824 | |nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230888559411789824 | ||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |name=Eric Weinstein | ||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=I wouldnât worry. My friends assure me this will all be caught easily in Peer Review before publication. | |content=I wouldnât worry. My friends assure me this will all be caught easily in Peer Review before publication. | ||
What stage are these drafts in *before* release? | What stage are these drafts in *before* release? | ||
|timestamp= | {{Tweet | ||
|image=MicrobiomDigest-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1230794470855069697 | |||
|name=Elisabeth Bik | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest | |||
|username=MicrobiomDigest | |||
|content=I am ringing the alarm. | |||
We have now found >400 papers that all share a very similar title layout, graph layout, and (most importantly) the same Western blot layout. | |||
This is a massive #PaperMill of (what we assume) fabricated data. | |||
|timestamp=9:00 AM · Feb 21, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=3:14 PM · Feb 21, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1230889071582433280 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Wait...what? But thatâs impossible! | |||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=MicrobiomDigest-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest/status/1230799216454201344 | |||
|name=Elisabeth Bik | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/MicrobiomDigest | |||
|username=MicrobiomDigest | |||
|content=It is extremely disturbing that most of these 400 papers have passed #PeerReview. The Western blot figures look too regular and have the same background. None of the 800+ peer reviewers or editors asked critical questions about such figures. Don't be that peer reviewer. | |||
|timestamp=9:19 AM · Feb 21, 2020 | |||
}} | }} | ||
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Feb 21, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=4:17 PM · Feb 21, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1234871059553366017 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=The first clue is â98% said they considered peer review important or extremely importantâ. | |||
Ahem. 98% is the kind of numbers dictators put up in sham elections. | |||
Study the history here. This is the journal that wouldnât Peer Review the Double Helix. | |||
This mob is perfectly wrong. | |||
|thread= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1234871052582309888 | |||
|name=Eric Weinstein | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein | |||
|username=EricRWeinstein | |||
|content=Thanks for this! In essence the article says that Peer Review isnât even Peer Reviewable because we havenât been able to get good data. Yet it has 98% support of researchers with nearly zero data and an incorrect first sentence in the premier science journal, Nature. #ResIpsaBaby | |||
|quote= | |||
{{Tweet | |||
|image=wolfejosh-profile.jpg | |||
|nameurl=https://x.com/wolfejosh/status/1234820077213622273 | |||
|name=Josh Wolfe | |||
|usernameurl=https://x.com/wolfejosh | |||
|username=wolfejosh | |||
|content=Peer review underâpeer review | |||
Calling @EricRWeinstein @BretWeinstein shining light on âDISCâ distributed idea suppression complex | |||
Scientists study phenomena to REVEAL themâwe ought study scientists to REVEAL phenomena of scientists who SUPPRESS (& why) | |||
https://nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00500-y | |||
|media1=wolfejosh-X-post-1234820077213622273-ESL2TxDWsAIXHEl.jpg | |||
|timestamp=11:37 AM · Mar 3, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=3:59 PM · Mar 3, 2020 | |||
}} | |||
|timestamp=3:59 PM · Mar 3, 2020 | |||
|media1=ERW-X-post-1234871059553366017-ESMkrqfWoAAJc6w.jpg | |||
}} | |||
=== 2021 === | === 2021 === | ||