Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday September 18, @03:59PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

In a controversial bid to expose supposed bias in a top journal, a US climate expert shocked fellow scientists by revealing he tailored a wildfire study to emphasize global warming.

While supporters applauded Patrick T. Brown for flagging what he called a one-sided climate "narrative" in academic publishing, his move surprised at least one of his co-authors—and angered the editors of leading journal Nature.

"I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The Free Press on September 5.

He said he deliberately focused on the impact from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.

"I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way science should work."

One of the named co-authors of the study, Steven J. Davis, a professor in the earth system science department at the University of California, Irvine, told AFP Brown's comments took him "by surprise".

"Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don't know whether a different paper would have been rejected," he said in an email.

"I don't think he has much evidence to support his strong claims that editors and reviewers are biased."

[...] "It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Patrick felt like he had to be a willing participant in oversimplifying his work to have a career in science. In that long run, that is not a service to him, the field, or humanity."


Original Submission

This discussion was created by Fnord666 (652) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Monday September 18, @05:03PM (25 children)

    by looorg (578) on Monday September 18, @05:03PM (#1325200)

    The lady doth protest too much. I seriously doubt anyone was actually shocked or even that surprised. It's just that nobody likes to be caught with their pants down. But this is so common I doubt people even bat an eye at it anymore. Products, scientific reports are products in this regard, are tailored for the audience, for effect or to please the one that paid for it -- pick any combination. It isn't the way it should work but it is the way that it does work.

    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way science should work."

    ... one of his co-authors—and angered the editors of leading journal Nature.

    This is kind of shitty tho. For the co-author. Nobody likes to be surprised or backstabbed like this. The editor is just mad cause she got exposed and Nature are furious about their precious image as if this turns out to be a thing nobody will want to subscribe or care to be printed in their magazine.

    He said he deliberately focused on the impact from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.

    That is so common it's the standard operating procedure. Ignore everything that isn't producing or supporting the results you want to convey. If you feel you have to mention it you put it someplace that most people won't even read it. Bury it deep.

    So while he is getting some hate and some pats on the back I still wonder if this was career suicide.

    • (Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 18, @05:15PM (1 child)

      by RS3 (6367) on Monday September 18, @05:15PM (#1325201)

      So while he is getting some hate and some pats on the back I still wonder if this was career suicide.

      Maybe. Certainly depending on how fair and open the entire science publishing machine is, certainly including Nature.

      It might help a lot if Nature would open up, for review, their submissions with published / rejected status.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday September 19, @03:31AM

        by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday September 19, @03:31AM (#1325237) Homepage

        Not at all. He's demonstrated that if he's purchased with grant money, he's like an honest politician -- he'll stay bought.

        --
        And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday September 18, @05:18PM (2 children)

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday September 18, @05:18PM (#1325202)

      > So while he is getting some hate and some pats on the back I still wonder if this was career suicide.

      Yes it was. Presumably he is near retirement age.

      > > He said he deliberately focused on the impact from higher temperatures on wildfire risk in a study in the journal, excluding other factors such as land management.

      > That is so common it's the standard operating procedure.

      It depends. It's okay to say "wildfires increase by 25 % from climate change" even if "wildfires increase by 50 % from land management" is also true. *But* the article should say "wildfires increased by 75 % and 25 % of that increase comes from climate change". I would have no problem publishing such an article (although the article should quote statistical and systematic errors).

      > put it someplace that most people won't even read it.

      Well, if someone publishes an article in a field where I am interested, I will read the full article several times. If my work is derivative then I will often read the source article many many times.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Unixnut on Monday September 18, @06:05PM (15 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Monday September 18, @06:05PM (#1325204)

      Yes, its very common in Academic research. At the end of the day Scientists are humans, with lives, mortgages, costs and common human weaknesses. Academia is also very fad driven, almost like a popularity contest.

      Very often results will be tailored in such a way that either makes it popular with the current thing, increasing the chance to get published and increasing the visibility of the authors, which is both ego stroking and results in more prestigious projects in future. Or it can be done to be pleasing to whoever the benefactor is, or in the hope that the "correct" result will generate increased grants for future research projects.

      This is especially common in "soft" sciences where it is easy to tailor results (much harder to do that in a theoretical Mathematics paper for example) are heavily politicised and have a lot of of money being thrown at them, like economics and "climate science", so a lot of that happens there.

      The main shock here is that someone deliberately admitted in public to doing what others do quietly. From TFS it seems he did it primarily as a protest against the very corruption of Academia I mentioned above, and it can be considered a career ending move. Either he has tenure and doesn't have to worry about a career, or he is near retirement and this is like a farewell gift.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Freeman on Monday September 18, @06:09PM (14 children)

        by Freeman (732) on Monday September 18, @06:09PM (#1325205) Journal

        I mean, if by gift you mean, "the middle finger to the establishment" kind of gift.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday September 18, @08:18PM

          by Unixnut (5779) on Monday September 18, @08:18PM (#1325211)

          That is exactly what I mean, the best gift of all :-)

          Also it draws attention to a wider audience the fact "science" is not above human nature. In the last few years it has felt to me that "science" has been elevated to almost be like a religion, that it is always right and you have to believe/have faith in it, which really goes against the one of core tenets of science IMO (that tenet being: question everything, you are not supposed to blindly believe in things).

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 19, @01:59AM (12 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday September 19, @01:59AM (#1325227) Journal

          This guy is 10000% more "The Establishment" than any editor at Nature has ever been. Can you even do a cursory google search on this man before declaring him your hero?

          Literally a decade of working for right wing think tanks, the federalist, the NRO, the New York Times, Newsweek, every fucking major newspaper in the country. Why is a "economics policy expert" suddenly submitting authorial credit on climate research?

          Can you engage in a moment's fucking critical thinking when your beliefs are being affirmed? Please? Can you not be a fucking child?

          • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 19, @02:48AM (3 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @02:48AM (#1325232) Homepage Journal

            Actually, you make him sound like part of the counterculture. He is obviously going counter to the corrupt culture of the science religion.

            https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/22/conservatism-new-counterculture/ [thefederalist.com]

            --
            Hail to the Nibbler in Chief.
            • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 19, @03:15AM (1 child)

              by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday September 19, @03:15AM (#1325235) Journal

              I get it, runaway, you're a moron who thinks people doing bookburnings are pro free-speech, and people engineering massive lies to distribute across a corporate media system are free thinkers. You don't need to remind me of your role as one of histories biggest marks.

              I get that you're too old and too dumb to ever admit that too, so it's okay, you can just harumph about "woke" or whatever your betters tell you to care about in reply.

            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 20, @07:33AM

              by PiMuNu (3823) on Wednesday September 20, @07:33AM (#1325360)

              Reading round, it does seem rather like he is in the pocket of the oil people.

          • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday September 19, @03:16AM (6 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @03:16AM (#1325236) Journal

            Literally a decade of working for right wing think tanks, the federalist, the NRO, the New York Times, Newsweek, every fucking major newspaper in the country. Why is a "economics policy expert" suddenly submitting authorial credit on climate research?

            Sounds pretty counterculture to me too. And if you're not including an economics policy expert, then you're not submitting research that we humans can directly make decisions on. Economics is the elephant in the room when it comes to anything climate-related.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 19, @04:59AM (2 children)

              by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday September 19, @04:59AM (#1325240) Journal

              You cannot be this stupid.

              No one is this stupid.

              There's no way you think writing for a paper that solely exists because billionaires bankroll it as part of a well documented plan to control news coverage is counter culture.

              The only reasonable interpretation is that you are a liar.

              • (Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Tuesday September 19, @05:30AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @05:30AM (#1325242) Journal

                You cannot be this stupid.

                No one is this stupid.

                What here is there to be stupid about?

                There's no way you think writing for a paper that solely exists because billionaires bankroll it as part of a well documented plan to control news coverage is counter culture.

                Truth is an absolute defense against accusations of stupidity. Here, what you ignore is that the vast majority of climate researchers are funded by governments, not billionaire hobbyists.

              • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19, @08:09AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 19, @08:09AM (#1325245)

                I think you underestimate the khallow.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 19, @04:28PM (2 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 19, @04:28PM (#1325277) Journal

              Economics is the elephant in the room when it comes to anything climate-related.

              You agreed that economists are the new astrologers [soylentnews.org] not too long ago.

              How can we explain this sudden shift in credibility?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 20, @02:07AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 20, @02:07AM (#1325336) Journal
                Q: How can we explain this sudden shift in credibility?

                A: your credibility hasn't shifted in a good directly by that leading question.
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 20, @05:55AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 20, @05:55AM (#1325350) Journal

                You agreed that economists are the new astrologers [soylentnews.org] not too long ago.

                More on this. I find it interesting how the link you quoted doesn't support your claim. In there, I don't ever make that argument. That's the ignorance and poor thinking you bring to a lot of your arguments. I did some work and actually found a number of real world examples that you couldn't. I'll quote a few to reveal the nuance you missed.

                In the above link: [soylentnews.org]

                Which is actually a solid argument against the Keynesian approach. Let us note that we have since had a couple of other glaring examples of the failure of this approach with the Japanese "lost decade" (more like two lost decades now) and the Obama administration's actions.

                A key problem of Keynesian economics and one which ties into the astrology theme here is that it's great rationalization for more public spending during emergencies. Then the theory gets conveniently ignored when times get better and yet the spending doesn't decline. My take is this is why Keynesian economics became so popular in the first place.

                In other words, I argue against a particular ideological system, not economics in general. While some of the myths of Keynesian economics are fairly widespread (such as the belief that increased government spending ends recessions), economics is far more than a particular, delusional faction. I made similar comments about Austrian School economics for similar reasons. Here: [soylentnews.org]

                I think we ought to consider the example of economists. In theory, they're just scientists with a focus on various economic topics. Sounds pretty innocuous, right? In practice, they're the soothsayers and entrails readers of the modern day, selling their services to whoever is paying. And there's plenty of powerful people willing to pay for a good story.

                Scientists as a group are trustworthy and incorruptible as long as the stakes are low - just like economists in obscure fields. When you have stakes in the billions of dollars range, you'll find that they no longer are, just like economists in the sexy parts of the field, predicting the right answers to big money policies for their masters.

                Here: [soylentnews.org]

                No different than a lot of climate research (which is physics-based). When there's a lot of money on the line, the entrails need to be read the right way!

                The point I hammer each time above is that conflict of interest is why economics and many other fields of science have trouble with reality. Scientists are corruptible just like everyone else and they're not that expensive for someone who wants an argument from authority fallacy or another toady.

                Finally: [soylentnews.org]

                And on the other hand, there was value in the entrails readers of the past because that was someone that people would listen to. Sometimes all that is needed to fix problems is to listen - too bad it requires a lot of extraneous hocus pocus to get there for some people.

                One of the bizarre things that gets missed with the dismissal of astrology and such is that decision making is hard for a variety of reasons: choice paralysis and waffling, uncertainty about the outcomes of choices, not seeing others' viewpoints, refusing to accept a decision and regret, etc. A good astrologist can listen: get their client to think better about dilemmas they face, and more fully commit to the subsequent choices they make. Or they can say what their master wants them to say. That's true of economists of today as well.

                A field of study isn't unscientific because of lack of integrity of some of the participants combined with conflicts of interest. It just makes truth seeking harder.

          • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday September 19, @01:32PM

            by Freeman (732) on Tuesday September 19, @01:32PM (#1325263) Journal

            As far as publishers go, Nature is as bad as they come. I'm not talking about Left/Right wing politics. I'm talking about publishers that are anti-consumer. Elsevier is right up there with #1 anti-consumer policies as well. There is also a very large tendency to feature biased content in academic papers. Whether or not this guy is 100% in the right, 100% in the wrong, or very likely, somewhere in between, is left for debate.

            --
            Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 19, @01:50AM (3 children)

      by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday September 19, @01:50AM (#1325226) Journal

      So while he is getting some hate and some pats on the back I still wonder if this was career suicide.

      Don't worry he's been getting hundreds of thousands a year from a right wing [eppc.org] lie farm [sourcewatch.org](and just got a raise for this stunt).

      I cannot believe how credulous you people are for this shit. If you weren't killing the entire goddamned planet it'd be easy to just laugh at how stupid you are.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Tuesday September 19, @02:20AM (2 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) on Tuesday September 19, @02:20AM (#1325229) Journal

        Goddamn, you can see the exact moment he got hired by the EPPC in June 2021 in his blog.

        He stops making sound refutations [patricktbrown.org] of denialist horseshit, and immediately dovetails into "but what if it's not big deal" [patricktbrown.org]

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 20, @12:39PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 20, @12:39PM (#1325382) Journal

          He stops making sound refutations [patricktbrown.org] of denialist horseshit, and immediately dovetails into "but what if it's not big deal"

          To be fair, he was still refuting horseshit just from the other side:

          In this post, I will discuss a particular method used to estimate the economic damages attributable to climate change for a single disaster.

          [...]

          The method has been referred to as the “attributable costs” method. It traces its origins to a 2003 Nature commentary called “Liability for climate change” (Allen, 2003). The critical passage is the following:

          “If at a given confidence level, past greenhouse-gas emissions have increased the risk of a flood tenfold, and that flood occurs, then we can attribute, at that confidence level, 90% of any damage to those past emissions”.

          Sounds reasonable. But he uncovers several huge flaws with it, though in a poorly written way. He discusses a study that attributes $67 billion in damage to global warming from an actual hurricane (Harvey). Here's the reasoning:

          • Hurricane Harvey caused $90 billion in damage
          • The definition of the “event” representing Harvey is rainfall at or above the amount seen during Harvey
          • Human influence on the climate is responsible for 75% of the risk of the “event”, so defined.
          • Thus, human influence on the climate is responsible for 75% of $90 billion of damage, or $67 billion.

          His first argument is a bit sloppy.

          Imagine 1/100th of an inch less rain fell during Harvey. Would the $90 billion in damage disappear? Of course not. All of the rain from Harvey, including that last 1/100th of an inch, is required for the 75% ‘fraction of attributable risk’ to be valid but not all of the rain is required for there to be any damage at all.

          In summary, the authors of Frame et al. (2020) are implicitly attributing all $90 billion in damages to the very last 1/100th of an inch of rainfall which is what allowed the arbitrary threshold to be crossed and ‘eventhood’ to be achieved. This flawed reasoning also applies to the original 2003 Nature commentary which used flooding as the example.

          What's going on is that the authors he is criticizing engaged in a bit of circular definition. Even if global warming has an extremely slight effect, it still could result in the claimed change in frequency of rainfall events described and extremely slight effect on damages. While I don't think that the above is a seriously possible scenario, the point is that the way things have been defined and methodology used, you can always frame it as an expensive problem even when it's not. The methodology allows for large exaggerations in damage from a climate-enhanced extreme weather event.

          Later he observes evidence that indicates such an exaggeration (though lesser degree) actually happened:

          “Human-induced climate change likely increased Hurricane Harvey’s total rainfall by at least 19%” (Risser and Wehner at al., 2017)

          “We conclude that global warming made the precipitation about 15% (8%–19%) more intense” (van Oldenborgh et al., 2017)

          Immediately these numbers should give one pause when they are compared to the 75% estimate from Frame et al. (2020). Does the paper claim that 75% of the damage from Harvey came from the additional 15% to 19% of precipitation? That would be theoretically possible if the additional 15%-19% of rain caused some physically meaningful threshold to be breached (like one corresponding to the height of a levee). However, the authors do not claim this and in fact, one of the authors calculates in a more recent study that the 20% increase in rain results in only a 15% increase in flood area (Wehner and Sampson, 2021).

          So climate change which increases flood area by 15% results turns a non-damaging event into a $100 billion damaging event four times more often? Doesn't seem plausible to me either.

          I think the conclusion bears repeating:

          In conclusion, the ‘attributable cost’ method is not appropriate to apply when the ‘event’ must be defined with an arbitrary threshold on a variable that imposes costs on a continuum (rather than flipping costs on or off). It should only be applied if the ‘event’ is a real physical phenomenon that can be said to either ‘occur or not’ or if the threshold is physically meaningful (i.e., enough rain to overwhelm a levee). Applying the attributable costs method likely overestimated the economic damages from Harvey by a factor of about 5 (if the estimates of Wehner, M., Sampson, C. (2021) are taken at face value). Furthermore, if one wishes to compare the numbers produced from these types of analyses to existing annual mean damage estimates (e.g., from IAMs), the damages from extremes have to be weighed by their low probability of occurrence in any given year. In this case, not doing so could cause an overestimate of the annual mean costs of human influence on the climate by two to three orders of magnitude.

          In my own conclusion, this sounds like a rather reasonable article rather than merely a "but what if it's not big deal". I just don't see the alleged change in perspective you speak of. Methinks you don't either, if you were to actually read these articles in question.

          One of the things that gets missed here is that he's consistently attacking bad methodology. Allowing that to become mainstream is bad no matter which angle it's coming from.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday September 20, @05:11PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday September 20, @05:11PM (#1325413) Journal

          If he started with the assumption that AGW was bullshit then "tailored" the article to remove that assumption perhaps he accidentally just made his article more accurate!

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday September 18, @08:16PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday September 18, @08:16PM (#1325210)

    but not surprising

    Yeah

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by deimtee on Monday September 18, @09:23PM (1 child)

    by deimtee (3272) on Monday September 18, @09:23PM (#1325217) Journal

    https://patricktbrown.org/2023/09/12/correcting-the-record-regarding-my-essay-in-the-free-press/ [patricktbrown.org]

    He didn't falsify anything, he just emphasized what the journals wanted him to emphasize. He was complaining about the system. I think his colleague was much more surprised at him saying it out loud than the fact that it was done.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 19, @05:28PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 19, @05:28PM (#1325289) Journal

      he just emphasized what the journals wanted him to emphasize

      Have we considered the Null hypothesis? That his "tailoring" actually made the paper more correct in light of the data and that it was his original opinion that was wrong?

  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by DadaDoofy on Monday September 18, @11:17PM

    by DadaDoofy (23827) on Monday September 18, @11:17PM (#1325220)
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 19, @02:04AM (4 children)

    by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @02:04AM (#1325228)

    Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this meant that every word written in this guy's paper was completely full of crap. It doesn't, but let's pretend it does.

    That says absolutely nothing about the hundreds of other papers reaching similar conclusions while studying similar things. It says nothing about whether the data he collected to draw those conclusions is accurate. It says nothing any data collected via any other methods.

    The conclusion this article plainly wants its readers to draw is not in any way supported by the evidence presented. Which of course is why they don't actually draw the conclusion, they just present the information in a way that encourages that conclusion.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 4, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday September 19, @04:54AM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @04:54AM (#1325239) Journal

      That says absolutely nothing about the hundreds of other papers reaching similar conclusions while studying similar things. It says nothing about whether the data he collected to draw those conclusions is accurate. It says nothing any data collected via any other methods.

      Because unlike the alleged bad paper, they were peer-reviewed by a top tier journal, right?

      The conclusion this article plainly wants its readers to draw is not in any way supported by the evidence presented. Which of course is why they don't actually draw the conclusion, they just present the information in a way that encourages that conclusion.

      Evidence that papers with unscientific flaws get through is an indication that other papers can too. Having said all that, this does seem pretty staged and low evidence.

      I do think that climate change is very exaggerated as a cause of problems (for example, here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], and here [soylentnews.org]). There really is a bias towards blaming climate change, discounting the much more relevant causes in the process. But none of that gets illuminated by a contrived example.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 19, @11:57AM (2 children)

        by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 19, @11:57AM (#1325257)

        So let's say you have 1000 data points producing a particular and identifiable curve, with an equation that describes it and everything. You then discover evidence that 1 of those data points is unreliable. Do you conclude (a) that data point is possibly wrong but the curve as a whole hasn't changed, or (b) the whole thing is bunk?

        To reach conclusion (b), you have to decide that:
        1. Any questions about the validity of a data point automatically means that data point is wrong.
        2. Any data point of the curve being wrong necessarily means that all other data points are wrong.

        The argument you're making is "Well, the standards for publication in Nature might be biased in favor of a certain conclusion, therefor all publications that have ever published papers about climate change must also be biased in exactly the same way." This is a ridiculous level of extrapolation from a single data point. The equivalent argument would be "Tropical storm Lee hit Nova Scotia, which means global climate change is real", which I'm quite sure you'd correctly conclude was wildly unwarranted.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday September 19, @01:48PM

          by Freeman (732) on Tuesday September 19, @01:48PM (#1325264) Journal

          A responsible academic would note that there was 1 point that didn't align with the others and document it in their paper. Which is pretty much the opposite of what tends to happen.

          Have you not been paying attention to the high profile cases of corruption in academia?
          Stanford President Resigns for "Unusual Frequency of Manipulation of Research Data" [soylentnews.org]

          Authors’ names have ‘astonishing’ influence on peer reviewers [nature.com]

          Imagine you receive a paper to review for a journal, and the author’s name jumps out at you as that of a Nobel prizewinner. Would you be more inclined to recommend the paper for publication than if, say, the author was a novice? Research published in September says yes: by a factor of six1.

          “That’s huge,” says study author Stefan Palan at the University of Graz in Austria. “Everyone expected an effect. But the size of the effect is really astonishing.”

          The issue at hand could just be peer reviewer bias, though.

          May as well just cut them out, then. (Nature was ahead of the curve regarding AI everything.)
          AI peer reviewers unleashed to ease publishing grind [nature.com]

          Most researchers have good reason to grumble about peer review: it is time-consuming and error-prone, and the workload is unevenly spread, with just 20% of scientists taking on most reviews.

          Oh, hey, they noted the peer review process is error prone, too. AI will definitely make it better, then.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 20, @02:09AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 20, @02:09AM (#1325337) Journal

          So let's say you have 1000 data points producing a particular and identifiable curve, with an equation that describes it and everything. You then discover evidence that 1 of those data points is unreliable. Do you conclude (a) that data point is possibly wrong but the curve as a whole hasn't changed, or (b) the whole thing is bunk?

          Let's say you don't. Then you end up with a different situation.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Coligny on Tuesday September 19, @02:24AM

    by Coligny (2200) on Tuesday September 19, @02:24AM (#1325230)

    Remind me of an article in the lancet written by a pornstar and 3 stooges claiming that hydr0xichloroquine killed more people than zykl0n B or something…
    And with still have armies of proud pronouns wearing braindead macaques on redshit (and here tbh) claiming that it’s the word of god himself…

    Well… excuse…
    The word of Science himself as Fraudci love so much to call himself while prepping his next speech to promote some random injectable catp1ss tested on 10 mouses and not even a single hobo…

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20, @01:55PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 20, @01:55PM (#1325390)

    I agree with this:

    "Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don't know whether a different paper would have been rejected,

    Proper science would be submitting at least two papers, one with the "tailoring" and one without.

    If both get published then maybe there's no bias.

  • (Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday September 20, @10:08PM

    by Entropy (4228) on Wednesday September 20, @10:08PM (#1325435)

    "Patrick may have made decisions that he thought would help the paper be published, but we don't know whether a different paper would have been rejected,"

    I think we all know a paper that doesn't "think correctly" will have much more difficulty getting published than the "think correctly" version.

(1)