On 8 May 2014 17:42, edward <edward(a)logicmuseum.com> wrote:
It is common to cite articles on the assumption that
they would not have
been published without review and checking. It is unlikely that a published
journal article would be a complete hoax (as opposed to containing errors).
It was a mistake for the authors to cite a Wikipedia article, of course.
Zee problem is that we know that standard peer review is pretty useless at
detecting fraud. Which is understandable. If I claim to have made a
chemical and provide a plausible mechanism what are you going to do?
Spectra are approach but its easy enough to calculate a spectra and add
some noise and a couple of solvent peaks. Sure there are ways to counter
that but they are a bit outside the skill set of your standard peer
reviewers.
So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a
complete hoax (outside of the yield section anyway) there is little reason
to think that has anything to do with peer review.
>You seem to think its straightforward. If you
think that you should be
able to propose a study design.
It is straightforward in my field. I have already studied most of the
Wikipedia articles in that area, and they all contain glaring errors.
Occasionally I clean some of it up, but then the errors quickly appear
again.
Please robustly define "glaring". Please also understand if I don't accept
you as an impartial source on the matter rendering your subjective
judgements of limited value.
--
geni