1) True!
2) True!
3) True!
But, I like the idea of him biting his tongue. OUCH! 😝

Feedback loops
 

I remember reading a great post on ToTV a while back on climate change and feedback loops and it was written by an actual scientist in the field. Was that you? Been kicking myself for not keeping it for reference. TIA

Yes, that was me. I don’t typically read threads about anthropogenic climate change anymore because the posts were generally nonsensical. They generally fell into 2 camps; talking smack about scientists they don’t know and are working on science they don’t understand or saying the world is going to end and you must immediately buy an electric golf cart to save the planet. The evidence points to some anthropogenic warming (about 1C for the mean global surface temperature anomaly) and there will probably be more. Estimates vary but warming of 2-3C by the end of the century appears to be possible. That is actually a lot. We will probably need to remediate coastal regions and there will probably be some geopolitical implications as the warming varies geographically. Unfortunately, due to that fact that we derive about 80% of the world’s energy from hydrocarbons, bending the curve downward will be a slow process. There is not much we can do in the US since we only account for about 15% of world’s total CO2 release each year. If you look at just transportation in the US, our cars only account for about 2% of the world’s total CO2 release each year. China and India are the long poles in the tent.

Loops and western blots
 

Rarely do I achieve such a win after such a screw-up! A banner day. :-)

Fascinating to learn that retractions are rare in your field. They are most definitely not in the areas of biology that I've had reason to follow. It's been most disheartening. But, it *has* caused me to learn a good bit more about proteins than I ever thought I'd have bothered with. :-)

I had some minor direct involvement in this situation. Just a moment... Learned more than I wanted to about how the world works. :-(

Do you happen to have easy access to that post of yours on the feedback loops? It was better than anything I've read or seen since on the subject. TIA

Thermodynamics
 

Understood. I choose to think of global warming as a free energy source. Guess it coulda been packaged better. :-)

In my field, the peer review process is pretty substantial. You can take a pretty good guess who will be reviewing your paper. They will typically be people working in the same area.

My expectations are much lower than in the past.

Free labor
 

Sounds like that would be pretty standard within any area of up-to-date science. Things have become quite specialized. What little actual info I've been able to access about the process suggests that the reviewer does the reviewing for free. Maybe that's how it must be, but from what I know about human nature, there's a fairly good chunk of us who might do less than stellar work under such circumstances, especially if there's a huge pile of more urgent stuff sitting on the desk. And, I *have* seen stuff published that was clearly "off" that had ostensibly been "peer reviewed". I suppose some areas of science are easier to fool and maybe some areas just have a different "culture".

BTW, another of my experiences was to have a discussion about this retraction thing with a newly Ph.D.'d microbiologist. I surmised that publications such as Science and Nature surely didn't have this retraction issue. She averred that the opposite was the case. :-(

More neuroscience fraud
 

And more. . . NIH Neuroscience Leader Committed Research Misconduct, Agency Says | MedPage Today

Retraction Watch weekly post of retraction review of past 20 years in "Cell" journal
 

Retraction Watch email:

The RW Daily: Hidden hydras: uncovering the massive footprint of one paper mill’s operations. And what two decades of retraction data can tell us.

Article on retractions:

Two decades of retraction data provide "insight into areas where scientific integrity may be compromised."

Just a moment...

TheWatcher

You left out the worst of the worst.....FAKE NEWS!!!

Big Pharma Paid Over $1 Billion to Influence Medical Research from 2020-2022 in BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine

If you still believe "the science", I can't help you.

What did that article say to you?

To me, it raised the possibility that the "peers" doing the peer reviews might be well-funded researchers or researchers working for well-funded companies and universities. Who should a peer reviewer be, someone with no working relationship to the field they are reviewing or someone currently active in the field? Those currently active in the field are funded and some of that funding comes from affected businesses such as pharmaceutical companies.

Perhaps a further study will show a bias by those receiving large funding amounts. This article does not mention anything like that.

The article said to me there is a huge conflict of interest. It was summarized in the first paragraph. Big Pharma shouldn't be paying anybody for reviewing papers that involve pharma.

It's like when the Sugar Council funds a study on sugar. Is that likely to be impartial?

So yes, if a paper is going to be peer reviewed, it should be by a completely impartial third party, not someone being paid by interested parties with deep pockets. That should go without saying.

The article did not say they were being paid to reviewing papers. That article said that those reviewing papers had received payment. Big difference.

I think you are going to have to consider the quality of those you desire to perform the peer reviews. If they are not involved with research or development in the particular field, or are not established enough to have grants, salaries, or other funding, then are they truly qualified to review that type of paper?