错误不是毒蛇猛兽，因此期刊文献中的错误是被允许的。

对于期刊文章，最重要的是新的观点。

无论正确还是错误，只要能激发新的思维，就是有价值的。

然而现代出版界已经演化成用少数几个审稿人，来保证错误文章不被发表，

这是根本不能实现的任务。

However, the practice in publication has evolved into peer review

to avoid mistakes which is a task not achievable.

为什么当代出版实践扭曲了科学

宁愿发表错误文章，也不发表垃圾文章

错误不是毒蛇猛兽

----------------------

普遍的观点是非同行评审期刊，发表错误文章才是大问题，

同行评审期刊会大大减少错误的发表。

https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56

https://doi.org/10.32388/4PN4RT：

“I do not support the claim that 90% of journal articles are false. 

This may be true to some extent for the non-peer-reviewed publications, 

but still, 90% is more of an exaggeration than a scientific statement. 

According to Nobel laureate Honjo Tasuku, 

90% of the views published by top magazines like CNS are wrong.

 As I said before, I see this sentence as an exaggerated formulation 

to alert young researchers that they should not blindly follow superstition. ”

真的是这样吗？！

真实的结果是：

往往审稿人的水平可能根本没有作者的水平高，

结果是错误文章很容易发表，正确文章反而被坚决地拒掉。

------------------------------

The purpose of peer review is to prevent incorrect results to be published,

but my experience tell me that this purpose is not achievable

and the only result is that disrupt innovations are prevented by the peer review practice.

And it is not just me with this view

and that is why the Qeios platform is important. However, I agree with the reviewer that different people have different views

and I respect the view of the reviewer.

------------------------

下面的两篇预印本的中心思想：

教课书水平的错误出现在许多期刊文章中，

期刊伪同行评审并没有避免这些低级错误的发表。

说明期刊同行评审在发现文章错误方面没有效力。

https://doi.org/10.32388/9P8Q56

[Commentary] Comments on: “A perspective on impedance matching and 

resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing” 

by Hou et al. [Carbon 222 (2024) 118935]

https://doi.org/10.32388/QQ1MFF

Corrections of Common Errors in Current Theories of Microwave Absorption 

Caused by Confusing Film and Material

-----------------------

“So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review,

but we have considerable evidence on its defects.

In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects

and almost useless for detecting fraud

it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time,

highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias,

and easily abused.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

--------

Aly 发现91篇文章反复出现一个教课书水平的错误，没有一个被期刊同行评审纠正。

K.A. Aly, Comment on the relationship between electrical and optical conductivity

used in several recent papers published in

the journal of materials science: materials in electronics,

Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Electronics, 33 (2022) 2889-2898 --------------------

当正确和错误相遇，并不是正确的总能胜出。

历史的车轮经常倒转

Gibbs–Duhem Equation 原本有正确的表述，但是后来被错误战胜。

正确的文章被反复拒稿，错误的文章被反复发表：

"Twenty-five years have passed since I wrote the paper cited in Jemal’s letter.

I have reviewed an average of about a paper per year on this subject

since then and have seen many other published papers on this topic.", J.N. Spencer, ΔG and ∂G/∂ξ, and the Physical Meaning of a Derivative (author's reply),  

Journal of Chemical Education, J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 9, 1188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed076p1188.2

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed076p1188.2

因此持错误观点的学者成为专家，持正确观点的学者被打压。

使得下面这篇纠错文章被不同期刊反复拒稿： Liu Ying, Liu Yue, Drew Michael G. B. Natural mathematical derivation

of the Gibbs-Duhem Equation related to ΔG and ∂G/∂ξ,

International Journal of Thermophysics, 2022, 43, 73

doi: 10.1007/s10765-022-02998-y.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-022-02998-y

----------------------------------- 膜微波吸收的波动力学理论推翻了现行微波吸收理论，但是这个新理论被不同期刊反复拒稿，

坚持错误理论的文章继续在不同期刊大量发表。

尽管新理论的理论背景只需要大学水平的知识就能理解，

但是

在期刊同行评审中，正确的稿件被错误的理由拒稿。

Although the theoretical background is not beyond college physics,

the correct is always rejected by the "justifications" based on the reasons

from the wrong concepts established from the wrong.

Our papers on the subject are always rejected by many many peer reviewed journals

before it finally appeared in one.

Disrupt innovations are unpopular and the number of rejections

do not signify that they are not deserve to be published.

期刊同行评审使错误文章很容易发表，

而正确文章在期刊同行评审下很难发表： Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew. Review：Wave mechanics of microwave absorption in films:

a short review, Optics and Laser Technology, 2024, 178,  111211 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlastec.2024.111211

Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Wave Mechanics of Microwave Absorption in Films

- Distinguishing Film from Material，

Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials，2024， 593, 171850 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2024.171850

Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory

in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses,

Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134(4), 045304, DOI: 10.1063/5.0153612

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153612

Ying Liu, Yi Ding, Yue Liu, Michael G. B. Drew. Unexpected Results in Microwave Absorption

– Part 1: Different absorption mechanisms for metal-backed film and for material,

Surfaces and Interfaces, 2023, 40, 103022

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2023.103022

Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew M.G.B, A re-evaluation of the mechanism of microwave absorption in film

– Part 2: The Real mechanism,

Mater. Chem. Phys,. 2022, 291, 126601.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126601

Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A theoretical investigation of the quarter-wavelength model

— part 2: verification and extension.

Physica Scripta 2022 , 97(1) : 015806.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ac1eb1

上面每一篇文章都是被拒到绝望后才发表出来。

The actual effect of avoiding mistakes in publication has turned into rejecting new ideas.

同行评审是为了避免错误的东西被发表，但是所产生的结果却是拒绝新观点的发表。

---------------------------

Le Chatelier原理 早就被证明是错的。

但是学者并不愿意接受新思想，

错误的 Le Chatelier原理 现在还在课堂中讲授。

Liu Y, Liu Y, Drew MGB. A mathematical approach to chemical equilibrium theory

for gaseous systems IV: a mathematical clarification of Le Chatelier's principle.

Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 2015, 53(8): 1835-1870.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10910-015-0523-5

-------------------------------------https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1016%252Fj.matchemphys.2022.126576/reader

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light,

but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34. “some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long …

experts were just too timid to take a stand.” Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/

. 16 Oct 2018 “Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers,

and papers that don‘t please reviewers get rejected …

Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable,

but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat.

Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe,

and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time,

geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper

and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation.

Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think

a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper

showing that Black people are just as smart as white people?

Or any paper at all by a Black author?

(And if you think that‘s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today.)

We still don‘t understand basic truths about the universe,

and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked.

Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.”

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The rise and fall of peer review

================

More examples of mistakes in publications ---------------------- 下面这篇短文充满大学水平的错误，但是这篇稿件很容易就通过的同行评审，

审稿人没有发现文中的错误：

Comments on the article ‘Comparison of calculations for interplanar distances

in a crystal lattice’, by Ying Liu, Yue Liu & Michael G. B. Drew Pages 302-303 |

Received 30 May 2017, Accepted 02 Jun 2017, Published online: 18 Jun 2017

https://doi.org/10.1080/0889311X.2017.1339034

这些错误与对经典米勒指数的错误理解有关： Miller indices, Online Dictionary of Crystallography.

https://dictionary.iucr.org/Miller_indices

有意思的是回应文章很难通过同行评审。纠错文章最后发表在 SN Applied Sciences上: Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar spacing

in crystals with reference to recent publications.

SN Applied Sciences 2020 , 2(4) : 755.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2498-5

-----------------

下面的两篇文章中的简单错误并没有被同行评审发现：

A new method of calculating planar density: the position-duplication-number method

https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576716010827

A new method of calculating interplanar spacing: the position-factor method

https://doi.org/10.1107/S0021889812037764

下面两篇是纠错文章: Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review:   Comparison of calculations

for interplanar distances in a crystal lattice.

Crystallography Reviews 2017 , 23(4) : 252-301.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0889311X.2017.1323332

Ying Liu, Yue Liu, Drew MGB. Review: Clarifications of concepts concerning interplanar

spacing in crystals with reference to recent publications.

SN Applied Sciences 2020 , 2(4) : 755.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2498-5

------------------------------- 金属保护中的钝化膜理论都进入了教材，但是这是一个错误理论，

用中学物理知识就能纠正：

Liu Y, Drew MGB, Liu Y, Liu L. Anodic Polarization Curves Revisited.

Journal of Chemical Education 2012 , 90(1) : 76-81

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200835n

------------------

https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.1016%252Fj.matchemphys.2022.126601/reader

“On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review

without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals

in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles

they publish every year. Good luck!”

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

The rise and fall of peer review “We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage

in opening up our peer review process, … The final step was, in my mind,

to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time

on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be

transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse.

Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting

than the study itself.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798

J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals Qeios has taken an important step in this direction. “Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the (peer) review

of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries.

The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded

because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. …

It (peer review) works well enough in the mainstream

but it is at the margins where major discoveries are made,

where people don’t believe in the current wisdom

and want to head off into dramatically different directions.

To submit those ideas to peer review is disastrous”

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn

Kill peer review, save civilization The academic world is conservative. Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion,

so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work

and will give you many negative comments, ….

Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted,

otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion,

science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history.

The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper

according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper

to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive

in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013) https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/BaFe12-iCeiO19-PPy

https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/389134254

===============

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

Is Most Published Research Wrong?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YETmLPgeGT8

"There's a lot of rubbish published in high-profile journals" Paul Nurse, Nobel Laureatehttps://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2021636118

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2021636118?doi=10.1073%2Fpnas.2021636118

Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201

Why Current Publication Practices May Distort Science

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVG2OQp6jEQ

This is How Easy It Is to Lie With Statistics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwkPEAY4D1c

Your Favorite Research Is (Probably) Wrong: The Replicability Crisis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcgO2v3JjCU

Is Science Reliable?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xgbRxA_7DI

ACADEMIA IS BROKEN! The publishing scandal happening right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPkBGe8XTAk

6 Publication Bias: Why Most Published Research Findings are False: Part I (FR)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0vXVclQZg

"Why Most Published Research Findings are False" Part I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWjN67vqXOo

"Why Most Published Research Findings are False" Part II

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GAeTwLB24c

"Why Most Published Research Findings are False" Part III

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvk2PQNcg8w

Post-Truth: Why Facts Don't Matter Anymore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JwElC2pkkM

Fraud & Deception in Science | Elisabeth Bik, PhD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWeVbYduOI

The scandal that shook psychology to its core ----------------------------- Ethical problems in academic peer review

https://www.peeref.com/hubs/218

（Peer review） is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work.

期刊同行评审就是你的同行有能力阻止你的工作被学界知晓。

Real peer review is what happens after you've passed the thing called peer review

真正的同行评审发生在文章发表之后。

The Problem With Peer Review - Eric Weinstein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5sRYsMjiAQ

Specialist classes make informational gatekeeping processes into safeguards

for their own status.

期刊和项目同行评审就是既得利益者保证他们既得利益的保护机制，

The rise and fall of peer review

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review

Kill peer review, save civilization | Times Higher Education (THE)

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn

Donald W. Braben - Scientific Freedom_ The Elixir of Civilization-Wiley-Interscience (2008)

Copyright © 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZvEEvTuP8

Is Science Broken? The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StGaabirH4s

The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine) with Brendan D. Murphy

科学网—[汇集，负能量] “同行评议”局限性的一些近年顶刊论文报道 - 杨正瓴的博文 (sciencenet.cn)

“全球撤稿量创新高，同行评议制度的弊病藏不住了

https://www.kepuchina.cn/article/articleinfo?business_type=100&classify=0&ar_id=468666

同行评议根本不能预测研究的成果

Peer review is not predicting outcomes at all. And that's quite disconcerting.

高影响力的研究被拒绝了，而低影响力的研究却得到了资助。 

There is high-impact research that has been rejected, and low-impact research that has been funded.

Jeffrey Mervis. Peering Into Peer Review [J]. Science, 2014, 343(6171): 596-598. 7 Feb 2014,

doi: 10.1126/science.343.6171.596

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.343.6171.596

[3] 夏香根，2021-03-23 10:00，再论论文 精选

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3395313-1278147.html

   可是后来TSP里面的非常非常多的论文都经不起推敲了，除了堆上数堆理不清的、不想读的、很多情况下是错误的公式外，别无其它。正由于这样，且论文数量又多，现在已成了恶性循环，仔细读论文的人也越来越少了，以至于写不清楚的论文容易被接受，而写清楚的论文反而容易被拒稿。

   现在TSP里的论文错误率已经非常的高。有的论文的作者，跟着做的别人的论文还没有弄明白，就开始堆公式，写论文。别人的算法根本没理解，就改进别人的算法了，且还能在TSP上发表。尽管现在TSP比原来的TASSP多了至少十二倍的页数，但是有真正原创性的论文数量却远远不如八十年代的TASSP的多。当然，这是我个人的看法，一个跟踪此刊三十七年的老熟人的看法。

[2] 夏香根，2024-05-22 10:36，再说说学术界的变化

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3395313-1435121.html

   后来国际上的期刊太多太厚了，特别是大多数期刊都成了电子版，也有很多open access的网络期刊。期刊发表论文页数比起过去有千倍之多。现在如果静下心来细读一篇期刊上发表的文章，很可能会发现错误百出，会后悔翻读。现在已经很难能找到一篇让你叫好的文章了，加之手边再无任何期刊翻阅，所以仔细翻读期刊论文的人越来越少。即使你在你专业好的相关期刊上发表100篇论文，可能也无人知晓。所以现在，想让天下知，需获多功名，或者在所有人都知道的最知名期刊上，如《自然》《科学》，发表几篇，然后就有各种媒体的宣传。专业这个词已渐渐离去！”

现代科学界真正的同行评审几乎已经死亡

现代学术研究已经沦陷为做学术游戏

学术已经变成学术游戏。发在“同行评审”刊物上的就是已经被同行评审过的，就是被权威机构验证过的，就是正确的。科学家已经不会用自己的脑子评判文章的价值，只会用期刊等级评判文章的水平。发在《自然》、《科学》上的垃圾就是突破性成就。

科学网—[打听] 当前“顶刊”论文怎么了？ - 杨正瓴的博文 (sciencenet.cn)

【新提醒】科学网—决不屈服于“对的东西很弱小而错的东西很强大” - 崔锦华的博文 (sciencenet.cn)

“对的东西很弱小, 错的东西很强大”. 决不屈服!  只有人人都敢于血性，错误才不敢嚣张。

----------------------------

在微波吸收领域，因为整个理论框架错了，错误文章占比远远大于90%

Y. Akinay, U. Gunes, B. Çolak, T. Cetin, Recent progress of electromagnetic wave absorbers:

A systematic review and bibliometric approach,

ChemPhysMater, 2 (2023) 197-206.