Colin Paul Gloster sent on May 31st, 2008: |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"On Thu, 8 May 2008 13:03:18 -0700 (PDT), dbell [. . .] posted: | ||------------------------------------------------------------------------| | ||"[. . .] | | || | | ||You are at their mercy. Last year I read an article that was | | ||reporting on testing digital voice recorders. However, they only | | ||identified the recorders by the numbers 1-10. What use the test | | ||results were to be to a reader without identifying the recorders | | ||tested is another matter. Based on some factors I could compute from | | ||some of their test data, I thought they had done their tests wrong, | | ||and the performance numbers were grossly misleading. I asked them to | | ||identify the recorders so I could re-test one or more of them. They | | ||refused. I couldn't even write a 'Letter to the Editor' about their | | ||testing methods without covering all conceivable recorders or | | ||recording methods that they could be. That would have been quite a | | ||letter, compared to my retesting as few as one recorder and showing | | ||them to be wrong. I read this as they do not want to be subject to | | ||scrutiny but want to get a publication. The editor said if I wrote | | ||the all encompassing letter, and it was reviewed and approved for | | ||publication, and it was in the interest of the publication, as | | ||defined by the editor, the authors would then provide me the model | | ||numbers. Of course then I would have to rewrite the letter to be | | ||brief and resubject it to review for publication. I don't think so. | | || | | ||It is interesting that the paper had 2 authors, 2 contributors, and 5 | | ||additional reviewers BEFORE it was submitted for review for | | ||publication; they said so in their acknowledgement. Why do you suppose | | ||they did that? | | || | | ||I think the paper shouldn't have been published without identifying | | ||the recorders tested, but I guess the reviewers and editor did not | | ||agree. | | || | | ||What they are doing is extreme self protection. And it is mostly | | ||working... | | || | | ||[..] | | || | | ||I can sympathize with your situation, but people will not be fair if | | ||it is in their interest not to be. | | || | | ||Dirk" | | ||------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |I agree that what is pretended to be science is too often not science. | | | |[. . .] | | | ||------------------------------------------------------------------------| | ||"I am working on a presentation (already accepted) for a publication- | | ||related national conference where I will compare results from their | | ||methods to methods that make sense, and demonstrate why their methods | | ||do not. So they will not escape very public scrutiny, inspite of | | ||having tried so hard." | | ||------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | |I am a victim of a real case of scientific fraud (not mentioned above), | |such that I was recently forced to resign after I uncovered misconduct by a| |supposed professor (the supposed tutor of my aborted attempt at a Ph.D.). | |Fortunately, I do have enough data from what had already been published in | |related work to expose some of this fraud, and I have been collecting | |examples of fraud or allegations of fraud or lack of adequate refereeing | |in diverse fields (e.g. biology and physics) to show that the perception | |of the widespread existence of science may be mistaken. | | | |Dirk, please let me know how I would be able to obtain a copy of | |your aforementioned presentation. It may be another useful example to cite.| | | |[. . .] | | | |Yours sincerely, | |Colin Paul Gloster" | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------| Dear all: Unfortunately I did not hear back from Dirk. Dirk, please respond. The following was recently published: Paul Colin de Gloucester (2013): "Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in Computer and Electronic Publications", "Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance", 20:3, 143-166, WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08989621.2013.788379 : "Abstract Misconduct is extensive and damaging. So-called science is prevalent. Articles resulting from so-called science are often cited in other publications. This can have damaging consequences for society and for science. The present work includes a scientometric study of 350 articles (published by the Association for Computing Machinery; Elsevier; The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.; John Wiley; Springer; Taylor & Francis; and World Scientific Publishing Co.). A lower bound of 85.4% articles are found to be incongruous. Authors cite inherently self-contradictory articles more than valid articles. Incorrect informational cascades ruin the literature's signal-to-noise ratio even for uncomplicated cases. [. . .] Keywords citations, computer science, electronic engineering, Impact Factor, misconduct, refereeing shortcomings" Regards, Paul Colin de Gloucester
Reproducible research
Started by ●May 8, 2008
Reply by ●June 13, 20132013-06-13
