|||
============
Comment to:
James McClymer's Review · Dec 19, 2023
https://doi.org/10.32388/S707SS
================
For a new theory, the conclusion from peer reviewers should be based on a full understanding of the arguments of the proposed theory. If the comments against the theory fail to convince the authors of its wrongness, both views should be published for public consideration.
If no reviewer can be found to review a manuscript, it may not necessarily indicate that the contents are outside the journal's scope. It could also suggest that the views expressed are so novel that no one understands them, warranting publication for further scrutiny.
--------------------- “Peer review serves as a quality control mechanism to ensure that only scientifically sound and methodologically rigorous research is published. Bypassing this process may lead to the dissemination of inaccurate or misleading information.”
Comment: Science would be better if censorship were banned. Outstanding papers would stand out naturally in history, and junk papers would die out naturally if commercial promotion and journal rank were banned.
科学不怕错误,科学有自我纠错功能。
科学的正确走向不需要人为保证。
----------------
“Without proper peer review, there is a higher risk of misinterpretation and misinformation. Non-experts may struggle to evaluate the validity of a theory, leading to potential misuse or misapplication of the findings.”
Comment: Scientific research papers are intended for specialists rather than laypeople.
------------------------
“Peer review helps maintain scientific rigor and standards within a field. Without this process, there is a risk of lowering the overall quality of scientific discourse and undermining trust in research findings.”
Comment: Scientific papers are not textbooks; censorship only hinders innovations.
=======================
“Publishing a theory without peer review may undermine the credibility of the work and the author in the academic community. This can hinder future research efforts and collaborations.”
Comment: Establishing authority can be a source of resistance to new science, as it challenges existing paradigms and established beliefs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0H-amOti_o
Why You Should Never Say "It's Just A Theory"
无为而治
少数几个审稿人花5分钟的时间审稿的期刊和项目同行评审简直是小孩子过家家。
真正的同行评审发生在文章发表之后。
同行评审使专业阶层将信息把关过程变成了保护他们自身地位的保障
北大教授乔晓春:高被引论文并不代表高质量论文-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)
上海交通大学杨枫教授-把学术界改造成美丽世界-科学网视频-科学网 (sciencenet.cn)
====================
不能发表纠错文章几乎成了学术界的潜规则
Vazire, S., 2020. A toast to the error detectors. Nature. 577, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2
=================
主流期刊不发表反对主流理论的文章几乎成了学术界的潜规则:
"后来我父亲又把论文寄到美国物理评论(Physics Review),杂志编辑很重视这篇文章,先后5次提出这样那样的问题,质疑论文的各项立论,都被我父亲圆满解答,这就是后来所说的“五个回合的较量”。最后编辑理屈词穷,由总编辑出面答复我父亲,承认无法再提问题,承认您的文章无懈可击,但因考虑该刊为主流物理杂志,不适宜刊登,建议到别的杂志社。
"https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1582700776632704690&wfr=spider&for=pc
绝对真实,卢家人了挑战爱因斯坦,卢氏就是牛!
====================
参考文献引用的潜规则
科学网—引用参考文献的若干“潜规则” - 黄河宁的博文 (sciencenet.cn)
“甚至要求引用文章的期刊分布、数据库分布要均衡”:这是把学术研究变成学术游戏的典型代表。科学研究不应该看任何人的脸色
“必须引用新近发表的论文”是跟风盛行的写照。难道颠覆性创新只能源于跟风研究?
https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html
许小年:创新没有风口,凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新
http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml
http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml
张维迎:创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法
https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html
多数人认同的不叫创新
https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp
但“创新”意味着与众不同,公认的东西往往是常识
https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue
学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量
https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1063%252F5.0153612/reader
=======================
=======================
已经投入应用的就是已经被验证的真理吗?
"Companies were formed, including one headed by Anversa, based on the claim that by injecting stem cells they could heal hearts that were damaged by heart attacks.
...
But what about those companies selling stem cell treatments for the heart?"
“Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申:历史是最公正的。历史反复证明,那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕,而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 Expansion: History serves as the ultimate arbiter. It consistently reveals that what is often overemphasized by the prominent scholars of an era is often merely the intentional promotion of mediocrity, while that which is suppressed by the prevailing contemporary scholars often reveals itself to be authentic and of true value.
教学名师不是优美的教态、不是工整的板书、不是美观教案,教学名师更是对教材逻辑内容的理解
化学不是实验科学、物理不是实验科学、正确的理论才是检验科学的唯一标准
做学问更是为了继承人类最优秀的成果,其次才是创新(科学研究的指导思想)
====
“为何一个错误的研究和结果近20年还不断有人跟随,直至现在才被彻底揭穿?
同济大学医学院教授左为则认为这是圈内公认的“皇帝的新衣”,“很多人都知道,但说出来的少”
在任何会议上,只要有人质疑他的假说,都会被安维萨称为“蠢货”,在其实验室内部,对他提出的假说提出质疑的人会立即被解雇。
此外,这一结果与论文的审稿流程也脱不开干系——论文发表时都会经过同行专家的评审,但多数的专家都会忌惮安维萨的名字,很多实验不足的地方,都默认为已验证,或无需验证。反之,那些对他的假说提出质疑的论文,一旦被送到安维萨手里,毫无疑问将遭到无情的批判和打压,得不到发表的机会。
=====
同行评审期刊遵守的共同规则不是你稿子的真正质量,而是:你连审稿人都说服不了,就是你的稿子有问题。
显然,这种同行评审规则不如抓阄或掷骰子.
====
数不清的人力、物力、财力投入,最后只换来一堆无法自圆其说又毫无实践意义的论文。
学术圈某种意义上像是个派系林立的“江湖”,学术权威如同“教主”一样,普通学者没有力量反抗其观点。随着发表的错误论文越来越多,跟风研究的越来越多,大家都成了既得利益者,就默许了这些错误的观点继续流传下去。究其原因,质疑、求证的科学精神在国内外都还需进一步加强。”
骗了全世界十余年 美国干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛 (baidu.com)
骗了全世界十余年,干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛|干细胞|心肌|撤稿_新浪科技_新浪网 (sina.com.cn)
The Quarter-Wavelength Theory of Microwave Absorption Has Been Debunked II (growkudos.com)
有了这么一个“惊世骇俗”的发现,人们仿佛看到了巨大的希望和商机,美国政府恨不得把国家科学基金都给他,让他赶紧进行临床实验。然而,2004年三月,《自然》上有两篇论文指出无法重复皮耶罗的实验结果,表达c-kit的骨髓造血干细胞几乎不能分化成心肌细胞[3,4]。
但这一结果并不妨碍皮耶罗实验室继续发表论文和申请基金。
造假十多年,撤稿31篇,这位心机大牛因何骗过全世界? - 知乎 (zhihu.com)
同时,一些不愿意承认整个心脏干细胞医疗领域可能都构建在学术欺诈基础上,也不愿意接受自己的资金全都投入了一场骗局的部分美国乃至世界其他国家的医疗机构,仍然在继续推进着所谓的“干细胞疗法”的临床试验。
不知何时开始,学术界许多知名学者、专家深陷“造假门”,学术界论文造假事件层出不穷,而种种造假案例都像一面警钟一样告诫后来者——科研没有捷径。接下来,我们看看那些曾经轰动一时的学术造假事件。
从哈佛“心机”教授造假,看那些轰动一时的学术造假事件_皮耶罗·安韦萨 (sohu.com)
对于大多数主流权威犯的浅显而严重的错误视而不见是现代科学界的一个严重问题
在科学上,多数人的错误(无论是学术上的还是学术道德上的),能不能纠正
在错误的语言体系中呆久了的主流科学家不能理解正确语言体系中的语言表达和逻辑思维
大多数主流科学家的同行评审学术不端是比“图片误用”更恶劣的学术不端
============================
参考网页:
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/video.php?mod=vinfo&pid=3695
[待考证] Zenas 公理:阿加西教授(Joseph Agassi)于1980年代?
破除论文“SCI至上”:[历史] 艾萨克·牛顿斗不过“同行评议”!.cn)
讨论] 牛顿:让做不出原始创新者去评议他人的原始创新,结果是什么?
[旧闻] 2014年 SCIENCE 杂志:“同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果。这令人非常不安。”
Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )
GMT+8, 2024-11-7 18:26
Powered by ScienceNet.cn
Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社