Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 10/13/2014 4:48:22 AM PDT by george76
1:1.
“The editors concluded that Chen-Yuan Chen, a researcher in Taiwan, had created a “peer-review and citation ring.””
Based on my own personal experience in NSF-funded, “peer reviewed” research publication, ALL “peer review” is based on “peer-review and citation rings”. Furthermore, I thought the reviews were often shoddy, in that the reviewers often didn’t have the necessary knowledge to do proper review. My impression was that “peer review” was often pro forma and considered a necessary evil, rather than an integral part of assuring research accuracy and integrity.
Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research.
Conservatives live in the “real world” of provable facts. Liberals live in a “one world order” whereby the truth is whatever they want it to be.
With that in mind, the world of academia is their liberal world and paradise.
I learned during my foray into education policy that footnotes have a genealogy. When I’d read a paper I would actually go find the papers that the footnotes refered to. After a while I could detect something of a daisy chain of references.
Academia surrendered it’s integrity willingly. Literally “on it’s knees” for the libturd progressive agenda with all the junk science about Tobacco, Climate, guns, etc. Hard to get upset about the Lady whining about being raped after you find out she has been participating in gang bangs daily for years. Somehow my concern for her “virtue” finds itself occupied by a number of other priorities.
What’s the use of being a liberal if you can’t lie, cheat, and steal?
A new dark ages is upon us.
Exactly. With climate change/global warming there is a need for research into how and why and what to do about it. A windfall for “climatologists”. Meteorologists have gone from being the nerdiest guys on the planet to rock stars.
Ward Churchill comes to mind, citing his own “work” as reference.
This is why “concensus” as applied to science is not just meaningless, it is damaging. Science is “settled” based on objective data ... “consensus” introduces bias which is what is happening more and more today and must be crushed whenever encountered. Ignorant people such as politicians like that word “concensus” because it sounds so inclusive and final, and because the general public latches onto it at every opportunity ... but “consensus” has little to do with science.
“Chen went to great lengths to make up fake e-mail addresses and even assume the names of other scientists to write approvingly of his own research.”
Ward Churchill did the same thing. Birds of a feather, eh?
Excellent work, detecting a daisy chain of self-affirming footnotes. Well done.
This thread title was written more than sixty years ago when a young William F. Buckley Jr. penned “God and Man at Yale” in 1950.
Integrity is less important than the agenda, ever since.
Among other things, Ward was found guilty of passing off others’ work as his own ( plagiarism ), but also of passing off his own work as others’.
That is exactly what some researchers claimed U.N climate papers did.
As soon as I heard many scientists claiming “settled science” in the political realms of global warming and evolution with no objections from real scientists who know better, I knew liberals had taken over the clown car. Once science is “settled” it is no longer science because it is placed above questioning and progress.
Moral relativity does not leave room for truth and honor. We are practicing soviet science.
LIBs are anti-science. Objectivity repulses them. Many LIBs in academia pervert scientific method through dishonest, agenda-driven “research”. ...and to think taxpayers pay the inflated salaries of these intellectual criminals.
Academia seems to have taken a page from Mrs. Slocombe, as they typically state a position and then declare the discussion over by screaming, “...I am unanimous in that!”
Basically, it is the same thing that Liberal racists do when they scream, “You’re a racist!” and then claim victory!
I see nothing wrong with criminalizing those who fake science - especially medical research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.