[GSlob]

The system is not designed or supposed to catch the frauds, except the most obvious ones, pre-publication: only a few publications like "Organic Syntheses" publish checked procedures exclusively, and the names of the checkers. To do it on a larger scale would be cost-prohibitive. But when the others try to reproduce the published results, and consistently fail in it - i.e. after the publication - that's when the scientist's reputation goes down the drain, and the fraud or error gets exposed and caught.

[Mamzelle]

re: and the fraud or error gets exposed and caught)))

Bah--the scientist frauds that have been exposed just in this last month would not have been but for the whistle-blowing of colleagues. A Norwegian physican that had made claims for a cancer treatment was shown to have fabricated everything about his study--and was only "caught out" because those who worked with him exposed him. Same with the Korean "superhero scientist"--the guys who worked for him exposed him.

I think they'd still be getting the red-carpet treatment if we had to depend on the peer-review system...

And it was this Korean scientists who inspired John Edwards to make his uproarious claims about curing Christopher Reeve!

A century ago, you could evoke a kind of (pum, pum, PUM) drumroll of goose bumps by saying the word, "art" or by styling yourself an "artist"--poetry delighted the masses, if you can believe that, and poets were feted as celebrities.

Now it's the white lab coat, the affectation of the Holy Temple of Science.

The prestige of the scientist is headed for a fall--and it will be caused by the same thing that brings all would-be celebrities down--vanity.

[truthfinder9]

So you're saying the system is inherently flawed from the start? So journal articles aren't the standard of excellence that many claim they are? Of course you don't realize that many popular science books are reviewed by credentialed peers before publication. So are journals necessarily better than books? No.