Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation

[SkyWriting]

You spend 10 years sniffing glue?

Just my luck it was mostly for food use so the whole business avoided the fun solvent carriers.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's a topic well worth the research.

You could've just said "I don't know."

 

[SkyWriting]

You forgot this image:

Edit: If you can't read it:
Where 100'000 papers are published, 13 of them are retracted and 3 of them are frauds. (This wasn't peer reviewed of course, as the publisher clearly states)

Also, you might be interested in:
"For instance, roughly 53% of fraudulent papers were written by a ‘repeat offender’ who had written other retracted papers"

So the data you highlight of .005% fraud being documented along with the 2% (that admit to fraud) means there is very little fraud being discovered. Many people in this forum claim all fraud is discovered by peer review eventually. But the data you point out says otherwise.

And there may be a few people who don't admit to fraud in surveys, those who refuse to answer, and some who don't feel what they are doing is wrong. We've seen people like that.

 

[SkyWriting]

You could've just said "I don't know."

My mistake. Well worth your research time.

 

[Elendur]

So the data you highlight of .005% fraud being documented along with the 2% (that admit to fraud) means there is very little fraud being discovered. Many people in this forum claim all fraud is discovered by peer review eventually. But the data you point out says otherwise.

And there may be a few people who don't admit to fraud in surveys, those who refuse to answer, and some who don't feel what they are doing is wrong. We've seen people like that.

Where did you get the 2% from? Were you using it correctly?

I don't see much sense in your post right now, I'll read it again later to see if it's just the lack of time that's the reason.

Edit: No, it doesn't seem like the lack of time was the reason. How much understanding of how statistics work do you have?

 

[TLK Valentine]

My mistake. Well worth your research time.

Yours too, if you put in the research.

 

[Tiberius]

It's a topic well worth your research time.

In other words, you can't answer.

 

[Tiberius]

Some percentage of a population naturally less affected. That percentage reproduces while the dead ones don't.

And the ones who are less affected reproduce, passing on the genes that give them that little bit of added protection to their children, and eventually those genes spread throughout the population over many generations.

Evolution in action!

 

[SkyWriting]

Where did you get the 2% from? ....How much understanding of how statistics work do you have?

As you say, of the papers filed .005% were recalled for problems.

And yet: "A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. "

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

So your data shows that nearly 100% of fraud goes unnoticed because .005% of papers are recalled for problems or errors.
So the system doesn't really work. Who has the time and resources time to double check everyone's work?

 

[Elendur]

As you say, of the papers filed .005% were recalled for problems.

And yet: "A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. "

PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

So your data shows that nearly 100% of fraud goes unnoticed because .005% of papers are recalled for problems or errors.
So the system doesn't really work. Who has the time and resources time to double check everyone's work?

You're not applying the numbers properly.

The number 0,005% is the fraud rate of papers in America, the number 1,97% is the rate of scientists who has admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.

Those two numbers are not in any way comparable.

 

[RickG]

.

The number 0,005% is the fraud rate of papers in America, the number 1,97% is the rate of scientists who has admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.

Most of which can be attributed to the fringe publications or gray papers that often publish research outside their stated area(s) of expertise; therefore, not really a true peer review.

 

[Elendur]

Most of which can be attributed to the fringe publications or gray papers that often publish research outside their stated area(s) of expertise; therefore, not really a true peer review.

Good point

 

[SkyWriting]

Most of which can be attributed to the fringe publications or gray papers that often publish research outside their stated area(s) of expertise; therefore, not really a true peer review.

What percentage would that be then?

 

[SkyWriting]

You're not applying the numbers properly.

The number 0,005% is the fraud rate of papers in America, the number 1,97% is the rate of scientists who has admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once.Those two numbers are not in any way comparable.

I am aware that the questions of fraud were not focused on published
peer reviewed papers. I have to work with the data I have.

 

[RickG]

What percentage would that be then?

I have no idea what the percentage would be other than very low. As I said, most of the fraudulent papers appear in the gray literature (non peer reviewed) and fringe peer review where the reviewers of some articles are not experts in those areas.

The best way to view peer review encompasses two factors.

1. Stick to the journals that publish papers only in their areas of expertise.
2. Look at the number of citations an article receives. Many citations usually indicates good work, little or few citations indicates poor work.

 

[Elendur]

I am aware that the questions of fraud were not focused on published
peer reviewed papers. I have to work with the data I have.

Apply the numbers properly or don't apply them at all.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have no idea what the percentage would be other than very low. As I said, most of the fraudulent papers appear in the gray literature (non peer reviewed) and fringe peer review where the reviewers of some articles are not experts in those areas.

You either have data or you don't. If you have no idea what you are talking about then that's fine.
I accept your claim that you have no idea what you are stating.

 

[SkyWriting]

Apply the numbers properly or don't apply them at all.

You may do so. It's really hard to control what other people do though.

 

[Elendur]

You may do so. It's really hard to control what other people do though.

I was referring to you, you showed a lack of understanding in how to apply the given numbers in #949.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was referring to you, you showed a lack of understanding in how to apply the given numbers in #949.

Of course you were. You will find it difficult to control what I do or don't do. Just lettin' ya know.