Publisher retracts 64 articles for fake peer reviews

paper
Credit: Charles Rondeau/public domain

(Phys.org)—German based publishing company Springer has announced on its website that 64 articles published on ten of its journals are being retracted due to editorial staff finding evidence of fake email addresses for peer reviewers. Springer is one of the biggest academic/research publishers in the world, with over 2,200 journals dedicated to printing the results of research efforts.

The process is a tried-and-true standard for publishing as it offers a means of making sure the processes and results described by researchers are true—without such a process, no one would know whether to believe such claims. Unfortunately, many publishers have been allowing a part of the process to be subverted by accepting reviewer recommendations from the authors of studies. In this latest instance, it appears that the thus far unnamed authors submitted email addresses for potential reviewers that led back to themselves, which allowed them to peer review their own work—a very clear ethical violation and a strong suggestion that there was something wrong with the work done or the way it was written. To be fair, the reason publishing companies accept peer review recommendations from author/researchers is because it's those same author/researchers that tend to know better than anyone else who would be most qualified to review their work, especially in areas of science that aren't widely studied. The problem comes about when publishers don't check to make sure the reviewers recommended by such author/researchers are verifiable.

Springer also noted that it informed the Committee on Publishing Ethics upon making the discovery of problems in its peer review process and promised to change its system to ensure that going forward, such mistakes will not happen again.

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time Springer has faced such a problem, just last March one of its imprints BioMed Central had to retract 43 papers for the very same problem. Other publishers have not been immune to the problem either, Retraction Watch recently noted that approximately 230 papers have been retracted from various journals over just the past three years due to problems with faked peer reviews—a very small number when compared to the hundreds of thousands of research papers published every year, but perhaps a sign nonetheless, that publishers need to be more alert to the problem, lest they face the embarrassing headlines associated with slip-ups.


Explore further

Vanity and predatory academic publishers are corrupting the pursuit of knowledge

Journal information: BioMed Central

© 2015 Phys.org

Citation: Publisher retracts 64 articles for fake peer reviews (2015, August 19) retrieved 22 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-publisher-retracts-articles-fake-peer.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2099 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 19, 2015
"The peer review process is a tried-and-true standard for publishing research papers as it offers publishers a means of making sure the processes and results described by researchers are true—without such a process, no one would know whether to believe such claims."

This statement is BS. Unless the peer-reviewers independently replicate the experiment/observation, evaluation is trust-based.


Aug 19, 2015
I'd like to know what was retracted.

"The 97%"

Aug 19, 2015
I think what's actually more surprising is that there are so few articles that have been subject to this type of scientific fraud.

230 articles out of how many hundred thousand?

I'm not advocating letting it slide, just noting that it doesn't seem to be endemic.

I agree that anyone who does this should be banned from further scientific publication. I doubt we'll miss anything important if that's done. But I would also think that if you get caught doing this you would have a great deal of trouble getting your next article published.

Aug 19, 2015
"In this study, we have estimated that the number of scientific papers published in 2006 was 1,346,000"

http://www.inform...391.html

Aug 19, 2015
Thanks, @vietvet. That's then 230/4,038,000 = 0.0057%

I'd say it's not endemic. Looks like about one in eighteen thousand.

Aug 20, 2015
"The peer review process is a tried-and-true standard for publishing research papers as it offers publishers a means of making sure the processes and results described by researchers are true""

This is the biggest lie ever! At present peer review is nothing else than censorship used to maintain the fallacies and hallucinations that the mainstream wants to believe. If it already existed in it present format in the time of Galileo, we would still have believed that planets move along epicycles. It is no use anymore to read peer-reviewed journals since they consistently sift out the grain and publish the chaff.


Aug 20, 2015
Peer review seems to work just fine for nuclear weapons, transistors, refrigerators, electronic power supplies, mathematics, aircraft, molecular biology, neurophysiology...

Just sayin'.

Aug 20, 2015
No it does not! When it works it is the exception that proves the rule that it is not working. Who decides that the anonymous person who does the reviewing is an equal peer to the person he/she is reviewing? God? Unfortunately not. It is usually editors who think they are gods, but who are mostly nincompoops!

Aug 20, 2015
...... even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
-- Climategate emails.

Aug 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
Peer review is good to keep out obvious crackpots, but unfornately it seems to me that from time to time it blocks publishing of something really new and revolutionary. Such cases are rare but they exist.
For example Fritz Zwicky was ridiculed for his discovery of anomalous movement of galaxies which led decades later to search for dark matter and now it is one of the biggest topics in physics.

Aug 21, 2015
For example Fritz Zwicky was ridiculed for his discovery of anomalous movement of galaxies which led decades later to search for dark matter and now it is one of the biggest topics in physics.
I believe his paper was accepted for publication after peer review.

The paper is titled, "On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae," and was published (please note, published in the Astrophysical Journal, fully peer reviewed) in 1937.

http://adsabs.har...86..217Z

On that page you will find a link to the original paper. It's out of copyright so it's publicly available.

Aug 21, 2015
Peer review is good to keep out obvious crackpots, but unfornately it seems to me that from time to time it blocks publishing of something really new and revolutionary. Such cases are rare but they exist.
For example Fritz Zwicky was ridiculed for his discovery of anomalous movement of galaxies which led decades later to search for dark matter and now it is one of the biggest topics in physics.


They are not rare but the norm. Only when you write a publication that supports the mainstream ideas will a peer-reviewed journal allow it to be published. New ideas and insights are ruthlessly suppressed., no matter how sound the results and the logic are.

BTW dark matter is not required to explain the motion of galaxies. If one uses the corrected formulas for the measured Doppler-shifts, the motion follows Newton's law of gravity. But of course this will never be allowed to be published. They would rather look for non=exissting WIMPS!

Aug 21, 2015
The term peer review was first used around 1967 and you cant compare the process in 1937 and now. Zwicky was obviously dismissed and ridiculed by his peers because of his idea of anomalous movement of galaxies. Such respond of peers to your work today would certainly lead to rejection of work in peer review. And I would say the same fate would have works of Einstein today. His first works as patent clerk were published without peer review similar to review of today. It is almost sure, that it would be rejected today, because his works were revolutionary on one hand and poorly written on other hand, because he lacked lots of important citations.

Aug 21, 2015
Good article about peer review in the past and how was famous Eistein-Rosen paper rejected by anonymous peer reviewer in 1936:

http://michaelnie...-review/

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
Unfortunately, many publishers have been allowing a part of the process to be subverted by accepting reviewer recommendations from the authors of studies.

The only real reason why journals should cost any money is because the review process takes a lot of time and needs to be coordinated. If journals don't even make any effort anymore then that's pretty bad (However, they caught it. So someone is making an effort)

The peer review process ought to include both specialists AND generalists

How exactly is a generalist going to review the quality of a paper? Unless you mean someone who is generally doing research in the same area. Because there is only one person who is fully in the exact same specalization as the paper: the author.

I agree that such people should be banned from further publishing/research. That kind of behavior does not mesh with the idea behind the scientific method

Aug 21, 2015
They are not rare but the norm. Only when you write a publication that supports the mainstream ideas will a peer-reviewed journal allow it to be published.

If you had ever published anything you'd know that this is utter BS. Reason being: You don't know who the other peer reviewers are. Even if you somehow had an axe to grind with the author (and since it's anonymized you don't even know who the author is): it's ridiculously unlikely that all peer reviewers would reject the paper for the same, false, REASONS (you know: you need a REASON as a peer reviewer to reject a paper. You can't just say "it's false". You have to detail why. If one reviewer makes such a claim but four others do not then it's clear that there's something fishy with the reviewer - not the paper)


Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
The 1996 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to DAVID MORRIS LEE, DOUGLAS DEAN OSHEROFF, and ROBERT COLEMAN RICHARDSON for the discovery of superfluid Helium. Their key paper was rejected by the reviewers of the journal Physical Review Letters. One reviewer argued that the system "cannot do what the authors are suggesting it does"."

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
An India physicist Satyendra Bose's paper on particle statistics was rejected by all the leading journals.After initial setbacks to his efforts to publish, he sent the article directly to Albert Einstein in Germany. Einstein, recognizing the importance of the paper, translated it into German himself and submitted it on Bose's behalf to the Zeitschrift für Physik.That was the humble beginning of quantum statistics -Bose-Einstein statistics.

Aug 21, 2015
I think that for around 1000 crackpot papers there is one really important and revolutionary but unfortunately the peer review as is conducted today is rejecting all these truly revolutionary papers along with thousands of crackpot papers and this is one of the reasons that in last 50 years there were practically no new revolutionary theories. Last revolutionary theory was QED from sixtees. Standard model is continually evolving as ad hoc statistics and all those string/brane/multiverse theories are just fantasy shit stirring dead ends which main purpose is to get grants and jobs.

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
They are not rare but the norm. Only when you write a publication that supports the mainstream ideas will a peer-reviewed journal allow it to be published.


If you had ever published anything you'd know that this is utter BS. Reason being:

it's ridiculously unlikely that all peer reviewers would reject the paper for the same, false, REASONS (you know: you need a REASON as a peer reviewer to reject a paper. You can't just say "it's false". You have to detail why.)


You are obviously not a practising scientist with original ideas. I can refer you to many scientists who have suffered rejection since "we know from text books that this cannot be correct". That's it: No analysis of the logic and results in the manuscript given at all. THIS IS THE NORM; If you want to publish in peer reviewed journals you must write mediocre nonsense and lavishly reference those people who you know are likely to be reviewing the manuscript. Kissing up is the name of the game.

Aug 21, 2015
You are obviously not a practising scientist with original ideas.

Bzzt. wrong. I've published my share of papers (and peer reviewed quite a few). You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Get out. Actually talk to scientists or start publishing papers. You'll be amazed how different reality is to what you dream it up to be in your basement.

Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2015
You are obviously not a practising scientist with original ideas.

Bzzt. wrong. I've published my share of papers (and peer reviewed quite a few). You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Get out. Actually talk to scientists or start publishing papers. You'll be amazed how different reality is to what you dream it up to be in your basement.


You are obviously a LIAR! Prove your false claims or shut up! A fool like you would not even have been capable to publish anything in a primary school class journal. What an IDIOT you are!

Aug 21, 2015
@ Some of the smarter about this Skippys.

I might be getting it wrong so if I am you can tell me and it won't bother me none. I think I heard or read some where, maybe it was here, that this Springer-Skippy has had this kind of troubles being sloppy and sly before. Is that right? Or is it all the scientist's journals that are doing this?

Aug 21, 2015
You are obviously a LIAR! Prove your false claims or shut up! A fool like you would not even have been capable to publish anything in a primary school class journal. What an IDIOT you are!


Actually you are the idiot here Skippy. Anti-Skippy has been around here a long time and a lot of people on here know about his works and read them. Even some of the peoples he argues with know about it.

Aug 21, 2015
You are obviously a LIAR! Prove your false claims or shut up! A fool like you would not even have been capable to publish anything in a primary school class journal. What an IDIOT you are!


Actually you are the idiot here Skippy. Anti-Skippy has been around here a long time and a lot of people on here know about his works and read them. Even some of the peoples he argues with know about it.


He might have been around here for long: I do not know since I am new to this forum. But he is obviously a lying idiot. It is obvious that when you have a system that can be abused it will be abused. And therefore the people in control of a field in science will NOT allow a publication that is so revolutionary that it can prove them wrong. And what is this idiotic baby talk of "skippy". Do YOU have any brains? Where do you idiots come from?

Aug 21, 2015
And therefore the people in control of a field in science will NOT allow a publication that is so revolutionary that it can prove them wrong.


Not too good at this, eh? First he is the liar and doesn't publish anything. Next he publishes only the stuffs that make him look good. Make up your mind and stick with it.

And what is this idiotic baby talk of "skippy".


What is this idiotic talk of idiots? Skippy is like saying, dude, guy, fellow, etc, only an idiot would not know that.

Do YOU have any brains?


Maybe I do and maybe I don't. Depends on who you ask and what day it is.

Where do you idiots come from?


Port Fourchon, Lousiana, what's it to you Skippy? Laissez les bons temps rouler Cher, I was getting bored with the glam-Skippy anyway. I hope you got more than he does.


Aug 21, 2015
You are obviously a LIAR! Prove your false claims or shut up! A fool like you would not even have been capable to publish anything in a primary school class journal. What an IDIOT you are!
Actually you are the idiot here Skippy. Anti-Skippy has been around here a long time and a lot of people on here know about his works and read them. Even some of the peoples he argues with know about it.
I testify to being one. I am currently arguing with antialias about the physics of black holes on another thread, but I gave hir 5 stars for all posts on this thread. And you too, Ira. Some of us don't judge people by their colloquial language usage but by the quality of their thought. And the Ira-skippy thinks deeply and well.

Aug 21, 2015
Reading through again today. Saw this circle-jerk of arrogance-suckup-ignorance involving antialiasphysorg-DaSchneib-Uncle ira. Unbelievable!

It's just this kind of willful denial of the problem that just proves what a farce 'peer review' has become...precisely because it is these types of people involved in the FLAWED 'corruptible process' which has brought peer review into such a mess; ie....

Antialias is admitting to being one of those who "has published/reviewed my share of papers", and thus is one of those who have contributed to the present state of affairs, but is totally unaware of that self-damning admission.

DaScneib sucksup without having learned anything from having been shown that 'mainstream peer review passed' claims may not be as 'correct' as he trusts them to be.

And poor bot-voting twat Uncle Ira just drivels along, "serving" compliments to one of his "smart skippys" who fell for last year's Bicep2 disaster 'claims'!

What a mess of Irony and Farce! Sad.

Aug 21, 2015
Reading through again today. Saw this circle-jerk of arrogance-suckup-ignorance involving antialiasphysorg-DaSchneib-Uncle ira. Unbelievable!


If you are going to be so grumpy when you come here, why you don't just stay away? I mean I might not be the scientist since I was nine years old like you are, but I got enough sense to stay away from things that put me in the bad mood like you get every time you come here.

And poor bot-voting twat Uncle Ira just drivels along, "serving" compliments to one of his "smart skippys" who fell for last year's Bicep2 disaster 'claims'!


I ain't serving nothing, I just comment on the couyons that come along. What I said about Anti-Skippy was the truth. Just like I tell the truth about you being a couyon. So if you are so smart, why you can't do anything to be in a better mood from time to time?

Oh yeah I almost forget.I am not poor, I do okay.

Farce! Sad.


Yeah you are that thing Cher/


Aug 22, 2015
"The peer review process is a tried-and-true standard for publishing research papers as it offers publishers a means of making sure the processes and results described by researchers are true—without such a process, no one would know whether to believe such claims."

This statement is BS. Unless the peer-reviewers independently replicate the experiment/observation, evaluation is trust-based.


Indeed. It is an unfortunate reality that nearly everything we perceive in life is held up on a house of cards of presumptions (Does Africa exist? I assume so, because there's a lot of 'evidence' to support it as such, but until I go there and get killed by a lion it is all an assumption).

Aug 22, 2015
Unless the peer-reviewers independently replicate the experiment/observation, evaluation is trust-based.
BS. There are many other criteria by which a paper can fail before things get anywhere near replicating the results in a lab. If it fails in internal consistency in any way, or in quality of the supporting data, it is likely to be challenged by reviewers. Most unpublished papers fail this way and are discarded.

Faking data is scientific fraud and is a completely different subject from the quality of peer review.

Aug 22, 2015
If it fails in internal consistency in any way, or in quality of the supporting data, ... Most unpublished papers fail this way and are discarded

Many unpublished papers deserve this fate: In contrast, ALL papers which are internally-consistent but challenge the accepted dogma are rejected without exception. That is why we do not have paradigm shifts in physics anymore.
The peer-review system has turned out to promote censorship of new ideas and insights; and the geniuses who are being censored do not even have the right to know who the fundamentalist-morons are who are doing this censoring. These morons do it to protect their own reputations and incomes; and in this process build an incestuous group of "true believers" with the sole purpose to protect the status quo. They do not promote that which is internally-consistent.
Just try and replace the internally-INconsistent concept of "wave-particle" with an internally-consistent concept: Immediate rejection!

Aug 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 22, 2015
Who is JohanFPrins?

Aug 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 22, 2015
@ docile, I did Google him and, although I am just an amateur with common sense, I find that his ideas are stupendous. And he is in my backyard. I will make a point of trying to visit him when I am next in Johannesburg. Thanks for the information. Why is he not pushing this concept anymore on this forum? It makes sense to me. Particles are defined as entities that do not diffract when they move through diffraction slits while waves do. Thus they cannot be the same physics-entities.

Aug 22, 2015
@ Zephir-Skippy. How you are? Good call and good catch. A GREAT BIG five for that one.

@ ink-Skippy. How you are too? I am just fine and dandy, thanks for asking.

I am just an amateur with common sense


But all the professional scientist-Skippys are liars and idiots? Cher you must be some really hot amateur.

Why is he not pushing this concept anymore on this forum?


He was a really meek and mild sort of Skippy and nobody would let him get a word in edgewise. They called him names in every postum and silly names too.

Thus they cannot be the same physics-entities


The problem with that is they are. But it is a good try for the amateur with uncommon sense. Are you fond of silly looking pointy caps?

Aug 22, 2015
Since you are an idiot from the Deep South in the USA, how do you know that "they are". Have you ever shot particles at a double slit and measured a diffraction pattern? I have tried this here in Africa but could never get a diffraction pattern. Are particles in Africa different from those in the "deep south" of the USA? You are really funny Uncle Tom!

Aug 22, 2015
Since you are an idiot from the Deep South in the USA, how do you know that "they are".


Because down here they are. And since you are the idiot from Africa why do you think "they are" not?

Have you ever shot particles at a double slit and measured a diffraction pattern?


Non Cher I have not got around to doing that before, but I think ol man Bercheron said he has done it. But he is known for not always being truthful so maybe he was lying.

I have tried this here in Africa but could never get a diffraction pattern.


My condolences for that. Maybe you was doing it wrong but you keep trying Skippy.

Are particles in Africa different from those in the "deep south" of the USA?


Sure they are, that's why yours are acting like they do.

You are really funny Uncle Tom!


Non, I am the Ira-Skippy. No wonder you can't read your particles right, you can't even tell the difference between Tom and Ira.

Aug 22, 2015
inkosana shows himself up & all too easily with
You are obviously a LIAR! Prove your false claims or shut up! A fool like you would not even have been capable to publish anything in a primary school class journal. What an IDIOT you are!
You are displaying a narrow minded framework relying on mere (idle) opinion not connected to any substantive data you've presented :-(

You open with "obviously a LIAR!" then afterwards go on to make a further emotive personal attack.

And THEN, try to marginalise & be prejudicial re primary school, this does you NO credit at all !

The a further personal attack calling someone an idiot.

Sane scientists with integrity wouldnt act like this. They would instead ask "Please prove your claims" and exercise some patience to observe the response understanding the dynamics involved, unless of course they have an axe to grind :P

What "original idea" were you tacitly trying to claim you believe in which suggests you are a scientist ?

Aug 22, 2015
inkosana claimed
Have you ever shot particles at a double slit and measured a diffraction pattern? I have tried this here in Africa but could never get a diffraction pattern
Clearly as someone who suggests they are a scientist the logical thing to do is explore the reason why ?
As I understand diffraction patterns are quite readily observed in the bulk of situations as decriptions of experimental setups to progress such observations are straightforward ?

Begs the question what sort of particles, have you closely examined the experimental methodology ?

inkosana angry at the drop of hat (again)
Are particles in Africa different from those in the "deep south" of the USA? You are really funny Uncle Tom!
This, as a claimed scientist, does you NO credit whatsoever !

Are you suffering amygdalic based dementia, I imagine you're ~80 yrs old, perhaps your time would be better spent with the aid of a moderating secretary - I like that idea when I get to your age :P

Aug 22, 2015
@ Mike-Skippy. How you are?

Zephir-Skippy called this one about as right as anybody could. I mean who could this couyon be BUT johnprinc-Skippy? "Liar", "fool", "idiot", "criminal" (in every postum) AND he's from the South Africa? Who else could he be? There can not be two peoples in the same place with that much charming good disposition about him.

Aug 22, 2015
" I am just an amateur with common sense,"

"Have you ever shot particles at a double slit and measured a diffraction pattern? I have tried this here in Africa but could never get a diffraction pattern"

Inkosana the amateur playing scientist, whatever could go wrong----

Aug 22, 2015
Sane scientists with integrity wouldnt act like this.
I am not a scientist, just a person with common sense who realises that during the 20th century theoretical physicists have become insane since what they claim is senseless. Tesla stated the same already in the 1930's.

They would instead ask "Please prove your claims" and exercise some patience to observe the response understanding the dynamics involved,
Normal people with common sense have far to long waited for sense from theoretical physicists. It has not been forthcoming for more than a century. Common sense stopped with Maxwell.

What "original idea" were you tacitly trying to claim you believe in which suggests you are a scientist ?
I have not claimed to be a scientist.

Aug 22, 2015
@ Mike-Skippy. How you are?

Zephir-Skippy called this one about as right as anybody could. I mean who could this couyon be BUT johnprinc-Skippy? "Liar", "fool", "idiot", "criminal" (in every postum) AND he's from the South Africa? Who else could he be? There can not be two peoples in the same place with that much charming good disposition about him.


Why not? I thought you believed in "wave-particle duality"? Maybe I am the wave and my fellow African fellow the particle?

Aug 22, 2015
inkosana stated
I am not a scientist, just a person with common sense...
! see, so you accept you don't adhere to "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" = Science (SM)
https://en.wikipe...c_method

Lets take this a step at a time with "uncommon sense" as you would be aware so-called "common sense" has nil metric, no discipline or quantifiable method in any objective sense other than by whims of he who claims to have intrinsic "common sense", ie Lets avoid tendency to self-referentiality

But, if you have a precise issue logistically with SM or a philosophical one which practically impacts upon logistics then speak now or forever hold your peace ie. If you havent addressed it by now then there is a foundational flaw in your base approach to knowledge acquisition re source of your opinion

inkosana claims
.. theoretical physicists have become insane since what they claim is senseless
Top 3 claims you imagine are "insane" please ?

Aug 23, 2015
Mike,

I follow the proved and tested route of "reductio ad absurdum".

Einstein made the claim that the same instant in time can be different simultaneous times. reductio ad absurdum leads to the conclusion that two simultaneous events do not occur simultaneously.This is obviously absurd.

Minkowski accepted this absurdity to claim that a 4D manifold exists with hypotenuse-distances s for which s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2(minus)(ct)^2. The hypotenuse of a 4D manifold MUST be s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2. NO MINUSES are allowed. If there is a minus it means that the manifold has a LOWER dimension than 4. Pythagoras knew this and at present even grade 10 pupils know this is so. To claim otherwise is insane. Modern theoretical physicists claim that this can be so even though the fundamental rules on which linear algebra is based FORBID it!

Mike, I suggest that you go to school and do grade 10 mathematics. I have passed it.


Aug 23, 2015
New ideas and insights are ruthlessly suppressed., no matter how sound the results and the logic are.

Bem's parapsychology paper "Feeling the future" is about as far from the mainstream as you can get. The editors of Personality and Social Psychology felt obliged to publish it because the reviewers couldn't find a flaw, and the editors were widely ridiculed for publishing, including here on phys.org. Not much sign of ruthless suppression there. Other people later did find flaws in Bem's paper, and several attempts to replicate failed.

Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 23, 2015
New ideas and insights are ruthlessly suppressed., no matter how sound the results and the logic are.

Bem's parapsychology paper "Feeling the future" is about as far from the mainstream as you can get. The editors of Personality and Social Psychology felt obliged to publish it because the reviewers couldn't find a flaw, .
There are exceptions that prove the rule. Furthermore "Personality and Social Psychology" is not a journal of physics. In physics journals like PRL.,Nature, Proc.Roy Soc. etc. etc. etc. the rule is to censor new data and ideas which clash with accepted dogma, no matter how convincing the new data and logic is. I did a poll, and the complaint from original thinkers in physics has consistently been that there is no exception to this rule. Many well qualified physicists like the late Herbert Dingle and Carver Mead commented on this sorry state of affairs. Many promising physicists have decided to follow other careers.

Aug 23, 2015
The kindle book http://www.amazon...tries*=0

will be on promotion from tomorrow to Friday.

Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 23, 2015
In physics journals like PRL.,Nature, Proc.Roy Soc. etc. etc. etc. the rule is to censor new data and ideas which clash with accepted dogma

Proof? All I hear is hot air and a lot of accusations.
I did a poll, and the complaint from original thinkers in physics has consistently been that there is no exception to this rule.

Link to your 'poll' and to the people who were polled please, so we can double check your claims (or expose you for the hot-air fabricator that it increasingly looks like you are)

Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 23, 2015
Well I don't know about anybody else, but I sure am happy for this. I was getting bored with Reg-Skippy's book about no gravity. And I sure am tired of waiting for Really-Skippy's book about his toes.

Thanks inko-Skippy, I sure am glad that Amazon will let you Skippys get out the word that is so true and world shaking up that nobody will touch him with a ten foot stick. Will I be able to get him at library to read or only if I pay Amazon for him? Or maybe you can do like Returnering-Skippy and just write him all down here in the installments.

Aug 23, 2015
Well I don't know about anybody else, but I sure am happy for this. I was getting bored with Reg-Skippy's book about no gravity. And I sure am tired of waiting for Really-Skippy's book about his toes.

Thanks inko-Skippy, I sure am glad that Amazon will let you Skippys get out the word that is so true and world shaking up that nobody will touch him with a ten foot stick. Will I be able to get him at library to read or only if I pay Amazon for him? Or maybe you can do like Returnering-Skippy and just write him all down here in the installments.
I have posted above that the book is on promotion from tomorrow until 28 August. You can thus download it for free. Maybe you can ask somebody with common sense to read it for you and explain it to you. Maybe it is "true and world-shaking". If not you can write a review on Amazon and give logical arguments why it is not. But first read the book before doing so! Don't be an idiot like the guy from Rome.

Aug 23, 2015
Maybe you can ask somebody with common sense to read it for you and explain it to you.


I will ask Mrs-Ira-Skippette to help me if I need it, or Little-Ira-Skippy he is real good with that stuffs too.

If not you can write a review on Amazon and give logical arguments why it is not.


Cher that is not something you want me to non.

But first read the book before doing so!


Okayeei, I promise I will do that.

Don't be an idiot like the guy from Rome.


Cher you seem to have a big trouble with all the idiots of the world making you the misiere. African idiots (Johnpringle), Europe idiots, coonass idiots (me) Czech idiots (Zephir) and now the Roman idiots. How you stand up to all that?


Aug 23, 2015
A person who rejects a book before he reads the arguments is an idiot. Not just an idiot but a dangerous bigot. Maybe you are the same Cher? So take off your ridiculous pointy-hat and read the book if you are at all literate!

Aug 23, 2015
A person who rejects a book before he reads the arguments is an idiot.


I have never had that problem me.

Not just an idiot but a dangerous bigot.


Maybe we should pass the law and get rid of all of them before they can spread their danger any more, eh?

Maybe you are the same Cher?


Maybe I am and maybe I am not. But you are doing a really good job of helping make up my mind.

So take off your ridiculous pointy-hat and read the book if you are at all literate!


If it is all the same to you I will decide when to put on and take off any cap I might being wearing (or not wearing if I don't have one on.) Yeah I am literate me. I even went to the community college and studied to be the engineer. What is your claim to fame? Other than being the amateur scientist with a book on the Amazon that nobody would print up I mean. Choot, even Reg-Skippy has one of those we like to have fun with.

Aug 23, 2015
If it is all the same to you I will decide when to put on and take off any cap I might being wearing (or not wearing if I don't have one on.) Yeah I am literate me. I even went to the community college and studied to be the engineer. What is your claim to fame? Other than being the amateur scientist with a book on the Amazon that nobody would print up I mean. Choot, even Reg-Skippy has one of those we like to have fun with.


Touchy, touchy, hey when you have to swallow your own insulting medicine which you so arrogantly distribute, while claiming to have qualifications. You have even gone to a "community college" and studied to be an engineer. I note that you do not mention whether you passed or dropped out! Ouch!. From your behaviour it is clear that you have a massive chip on your shoulder Cher! Tsk, tsk!

Aug 23, 2015
Touchy, touchy, hey when you have to swallow your own insulting medicine which you so arrogantly distribute, while claiming to have qualifications.


I am qualified to spot a couyon. If you didn't want to get bogged down by us idiots you should have went somewhere else. We are here and now you are too.

You have even gone to a "community college" and studied to be an engineer. I note that you do not mention whether you passed or dropped out! Ouch!.


I graduated with really good grades. What means ouch? For an idiot slayer you sure say some silly stuffs.

From your behaviour it is clear that you have a massive chip on your shoulder Cher! Tsk, tsk!


Well I am not the one who showed in a bad mood calling everybody idiots and liars. I am the one who is always happy with life and what is have give to me.

Aug 23, 2015
Happy and infantile Cher. You never grew up. Tsk, tsk. and are too stupid to realise that You are the one in a bad mood calling other people names and insulting them with your baby-talk. Please look at yourself!

Aug 23, 2015
Happy and infantile Cher. You never grew up. Tsk, tsk. and are too stupid to realise that You are the one in a bad mood calling other people names and insulting them with your baby-talk.


Skippy, you got to be the smartest genius on all of the physorg interweb page. You know all that from one day of postums? Hooyeei, you might even be smarter than that johnpringle-Skippy (but if he sees this we'll have some trouble on here.)

Please look at yourself!


Okayeei, I am looking. What it is I am looking for? All I see is the same face I been looking at for 38 or 37 years now. Anyhoo, if you got something extra stupid I will stick around, but if all you got is the run of the mill grumpy complaining I am going to go play radio and see if I can get some good qso's.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy, watch your self after dark it can get ruff out there.


Aug 24, 2015
An excellent in-depth article about peer revue.

http://fivethirty...-broken/

Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 24, 2015
In physics journals ...the rule is to censor new data and ideas which clash with accepted dogma, no matter how convincing the new data and logic is. I did a poll, and the complaint ...has consistently been that there is no exception to this rule
@inkosana
so... where is the link to this poll? is it peer reviewed?
where is the methodology, material and references?
you claimed to have a poll, so now validate said claim and link it here so that we can review it
thanks
Have you ever shot particles at a double slit and measured a diffraction pattern? I have tried this here in Africa but could never get a diffraction pattern
yes, and you can replicate it in any high school, OR go here: http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

sorry but... either you are not replicating it with proper equipment or [you pick]... i have never even heard of the double slit not replicating diffraction patterns... that would ROCK the physics community

Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 24, 2015
if for example the mainstream physics is capable to ignore the cold fusion finding
idiot zephir and all your many sock puppets

mainstream doesn't ignore cold fusion... there has just never been any reputable evidence supporting it, only claims and UN-repeatable experiments

so your claims about this are stupid, and pushing pseudoscience as well

until you can show some REPUTABLE evidence or give a validated experiment proving it... it is just more of your pseudoscience stupidity
why the scientists feel so superior to Holy Church
the scientific method works
why haven't you been able to build a cold fusion generator and change the world? why can't you prove your aether.daw? because there is not only no evidence, but nothing scientific in your pseudoscience proclamations- IOW- you are a crank pushing a religion, not a scientists
Galileo theory waited
did they have internet? how long to send letters? evidence? central distributions etc?
epic fail

Aug 24, 2015
The "only" problem is, they still have no method, how to apply this method, once the money are in the game
this is called conspiracy ideation
it is also called transference and Dunning-Kruger
When they have no interest about subject from economical reasons, then the scientific method has nowhere to apply and it effectively stalls
yep. all those filthy rich CERN scientists are horrible to you, right? with all the big bucks they're making with fundamental research, where all the money is...
hyperbole and satire intended

the only thing you are doing is pushing your pseudoscience because no one will listen to it...the reason no one will listen is because YOU HAVE NO VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

until you can get thru peer review, you got squat
quit pushing PSEUDOSCIENCE as though it were really science

Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more