Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by I Bleed Maroon, Jun 26, 2017.
And sending to your mates isn't 'peer-review'.
Unless it's a pro-AGW piece
Fap fap fap.................
lol....you don't understand peer review
I'm sure there is a valid reason for adjusting past temps down its just that nobody can explain the reason sufficiently .
Unfortunately anyone who remotely disagrees with climate alarm is set upon by a pack of rabid dogs.
Take Freeman Dyson for example.
I had no idea you found my posts so...um...inspiring bandy
One warmist signs off on the ramblings of another warmist. It's meaningless
That's how you get piece like this
not if your mates can influence peer review from the outside
"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
peer review is not a guarantee of scientific veracity
you clearly have no idea of what peer review is
the idea is that anyone can review it, not just your mates
the reviewers are appointed by the journal
one of the major debates in science is disclosure of all materials so 'anyone' can review a paper
many times datasets and programs used to construct a paper are themselves protected by copyright and patent and cannot be disclosed to the general public
you boys need to stop believing everything you read on thinkprogress.com and the daily kos
are you a scientist millers?
The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered last year, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Science about how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.
Biomed Central, a UK company that publishes 277 peer-reviewed journals, announced that it is retracting 43 articles because of “fabricated” peer-review.
Peer-review is a process that many scientific journals use to vet submitted articles. Typically an editor will review the article but also send it out to two or three experts in the subject matter and have them take a close look at the article to make sure everything is high quality. Most submitted articles will come back with required changes before acceptance. Of course many articles are rejected outright.
The process is not perfect, but it is one critical layer of quality control. The “peer-reviewed literature” is therefore a body of evaluated knowledge that has met at least a minimal standard of quality.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Not all peer-reviewed journals are as rigorous. Also, whenever there is any system in place to separate the wheat from the chaff, someone will try to game the system for their own advantage. There also needs to be some monitoring or policing in place to ensure the integrity of the system.
Scientific fraud is a terrible thing. The institution of science requires complete transparency, and fraud violates transparency and reduces confidence in the whole system. Peer-review fraud is not as bad as fabricating data (the ultimate scientific sin) but it’s bad.
The concern is that the problem may be much deeper than these 43 retracted articles. This story, therefore, may not be over yet. I don’t think this will turn out to be a systemic problem but it may be widespread.
leading scientific publisher has retracted 64 articles in 10 journals, after an internal investigation discovered fabricated peer-review reports linked to the articles’ publication.
Berlin-based Springer announced the retractions in an 18 August statement. In May, Springer merged with parts of Macmillan Science and Education — which publishes Nature — to form the new companySpringer Nature.
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn’t the journal’s first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals— 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason.
And only the best peer-reviewed fabricated data is good enough for the IPCC
A bacterium that some scientists thought could use arsenic in place of phosphorus in its DNA actually goes to extreme lengths to grab any traces of phosphorus it can find.
The finding clears up a lingering question sparked by a controversial study1, published in Science in 2010, which claimed that the GFAJ-1 microbe could thrive in the high-arsenic conditions of Mono Lake in California without metabolizing phosphorus — an element that is essential for all forms of life.
Although this and other key claims of the paper were later undermined (see 'Study challenges existence of arsenic-based life'), it was not clear how bacteria discriminate between nearly identical molecules of phosphate (PO43-) and arsenate (AsO43-).
No, today's NASA announcement is not about proof of life on another world.
A recent release hinting at "an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life" had bloggers abuzz the past few days with speculation that the space agency had discovered extraterrestrial life.
The truth, however, is that scientists have found life on Earth that's perhaps the most "alien" organism yet seen.
A new species of bacteria found in California's Mono Lake is the first known life-form that uses arsenic to make its DNA and proteins, scientists announced today. (Get a genetics overview.)
Dubbed the GFAJ-1 strain, the bacteria can substitute arsenic for phosphorus, one of the six main "building blocks" for most known life. The other key ingredients for life are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur.
It was hailed in 2010 as the most "alien" life-form yet: bacteria that reportedly, and unprecedentedly, had rewritten the recipe for DNA. And the secret ingredient was arsenic.
Sparkly Meteors and 7 More Can’t-Miss Sky Events in July
Amazing Pictures From 20 Years Of Nonstop Robots On Mars
Eerie Clouds Glow at Night—How to See Them
But now two new studies seem to have administered a final dose of poison to the already controversial finding.
Researchers led by then NASA astrobiologist Felisa Wolfe-Simon had found the organism, dubbed GFAJ-1, in arsenic-rich sediments of California's Mono Lake. They later reported in the journal Science that the bacterium thrived in arsenic-rich, phosphorus-poor lab conditions.
The team concluded that GFAJ-1 must be incorporating arsenic into its DNA in place of phosphorous, which is essential for the DNA of all other known organisms. (Get a genetics overview.)
The find was exciting to astrobiologists, who'd previously speculated that extraterrestrial life might survive in unexpected places if only such a swap were possible—arsenic and phosphorous being chemically similar. (Related: "Saturn's Largest Moon Has Ingredients for Life?")
Soon after the announcement, though, other researchers began saying they were having trouble replicating Wolfe-Simon's results. Those criticisms were finally given formal voice Sunday in the form of two different studies with very similar results.
The new studies, also published in Science, found that the bacterium did in fact grow in the conditions described in the 2010 study.
But when the amount of phosphorous was reduced even further than in Wolfe-Simon's experiments, GFAJ-1 stalled. Furthermore, biologist Rosemary Redfield writes in the new study, no signs of arsenic could be found in GFAJ-1's DNA.
The new conclusion: the arsenic-loving life-form does in fact need phosphorous to grow, but shockingly tiny amounts of it.
no doubt people make shit up
and when discovered the record is corrected as it should be
doesn't discount the other 99%
Separate names with a comma.