'Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled By Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study

Well I guess I'm really guilty and will be paying a huge carbon tax
 
We should all feel bad that people are so easily fooled.

Look at Tom Cruise?
 
Certainly seems to be the problem based off this story. What do you think the problem is?
"We're not going to validate this word salad, but here's an organization that will"

Seems like they're contributing to the problem of vanity journals via proxy. Scratch that, supporting the ones that play for their team. Even if they're known as illegitimate.
 
"We're not going to validate this word salad, but here's an organization that will"

Seems like they're contributing to the problem of vanity journals via proxy. Scratch that, supporting the ones that play for their team. Even if they're known as illegitimate.
How are they supporting the other journal? That journal is supported by itself via publication fees. Really that exchange sounds like "Your article is shit but if you really want it published talk to these guys and they'll do it for you"

Its almost like a legit publisher rejecting a novel and recommending that the author self publish. Its not really an endorsement of self publishing, more of a realistic recommendation for the author who wouldn't be able to get their material published via a reputable publisher.
 
Grown men cringing? Oh, your location is San Fransisco, that explains it.

wKk3I99.gif
 
How are they supporting the other journal? That journal is supported by itself via publication fees. Really that exchange sounds like "Your article is shit but if you really want it published talk to these guys and they'll do it for you"

Its almost like a legit publisher rejecting a novel and recommending that the author self publish. Its not really an endorsement of self publishing, more of a realistic recommendation for the author who wouldn't be able to get their material published via a reputable publisher.
I'm as far from academia as possible so might be talking out my butt here, but, I would expect intellectual integrity to be of higher concern than helping Joe Blow get his gibberish published.

If a client approaches me with a project that would be of disservice, or detrimental to my industry or themselves I try to steer them away from the project instead of helping them. Apples to bowling balls in most cases, but the principle is sound.
 
I'm as far from academia as possible so might be talking out my butt here, but, I would expect intellectual integrity to be of higher concern than helping Joe Blow get his gibberish published.

If a client approaches me with a project that would be of disservice, or detrimental to my industry or themselves I try to steer them away from the project instead of helping them. Apples to bowling balls in most cases, but the principle is sound.
I see what you're saying but I think in this case its more like what Dana Whtie said about Ryan Bader being a perfect fit for Bellator. That's not an endorsement of Bellator, its more of a comment on where Bader is at in his career and not a particularly good one.
 
I see what you're saying but I think in this case its more like what Dana Whtie said about Ryan Bader being a perfect fit for Bellator. That's not an endorsement of Bellator, its more of a comment on where Bader is at in his career and not a particularly good one.
I get ya.

But at the end of the day Bader is indeed a fighter, while a word salad isn't a coherent paper.
 
I get ya.

But at the end of the day Bader is indeed a fighter, while a word salad isn't a coherent paper.
Sure he's still a fighter but I think you get the subtext. The implication is you're not legit enough for the UFC and begone to the bush league. I think that's what this journal was saying to these authors.
 
Sure he's still a fighter but I think you get the subtext. The implication is you're not legit enough for the UFC and begone to the bush league. I think that's what this journal was saying to these authors.
I get what you're saying, but the analogy would work better if Dana booted CM punk who's not worthy of the name. Just as the paper in question isn't a work based in reality, or worthy of such consideration.

I think we're just whittling this topic down to semantics at this point. Yet, it seems absurd that anyone can buy a form of legitimacy and say they published a peer reviewed word salad given the financial means. To my limited understanding it undermines the meaning. Imagine the crap we could come up with as a group here in the WR?
 
TS
fooled by anything on
breitbart
infowars
drudge report
hannity
o'reilly
 
I get what you're saying, but the analogy would work better if Dana booted CM punk who's not worthy of the name. Just as the paper in question isn't a work based in reality, or worthy of such consideration.

I think we're just whittling this topic down to semantics at this point. Yet, it seems absurd that anyone can buy a form of legitimacy and say they published a peer reviewed word salad given the financial means. To my limited understanding it undermines the meaning. Imagine the crap we could come up with as a group here in the WR?
It is absurd that you can buy whatever legitimacy these journals confer but the point is that this is more of a problem of these open access journals and not the field in particular since it didn't get published in the more reputable journals.
 
It is absurd that you can buy whatever legitimacy these journals confer but the point is that this is more of a problem of these open access journals and not the field in particular since it didn't get published in the more reputable journals.
Good enough, yet to the uninitiated (me), the difference is unknown. At least until I read this thread.
 
Not defending this shit journal, but peer review isn't supposed to be a 100% screening process that guarantees a published work is of the highest quality and irrefutable. Its really just there to make sure there are no major and obvious conceptual flaws and that a paper is clearly written. A much better test if how many times a paper is cited. The authors should have stayed quiet about their hoax, and seen how many citations they got. If no one ever cites, then maybe the field is good at sorting out the bullshit. If they rack up dozens of citations, then he might have a pretty strong claim that no one in the field knows what the fuck they are talking about.
 
Back
Top