Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (685895)	11/22/2012 11:10:10 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1578494

>> Without peer reviews and awful lot of crap would be published.. WITH peer reviews an awful lot of crap is published. E. Oxenhielm, On the second part of Hilbert’s 16th problem, accepted and made available online by Nonlinear Analysis in 2003 before the acceptance was withdrawn after publicity, sharing.mine.nu. [See news.bbc.co.uk for news coverage, and tesugen.com for a refutation of the paper’s ridiculous claims of a proof.] L. A. V. Carvalho, On some contradictory computations in multi-dimensional mathematics, Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005), 725-734, dx.doi.org. [See arxiv.org for severe criticism, but the paper has not been retracted.] “Rohollah Mosallahnezhad”, Cooperative, compact algorithms for randomized algorithms, accepted by Applied Mathematics and Computation in 2007 and formatted/copy-edited but withdrawn after publicity, dx.doi.org and pdos.csail.mit.edu. [In this unbelievable case, computer-generated nonsense was accepted for publication. See pdos.csail.mit.edu.] M. Sivasubramanian, New parallel theory, Applied Mathematics Letters 23 (2010), 1137-1139, dx.doi.org. [See retractionwatch.wordpress.com.] M. Sivasubramanian and S. Kalimuthu, A computer application in mathematics, Computers & Mathematics with Applications 59 (2010), 296-297, dx.doi.org and math.hkbu.edu.hk. [This paper supposedly proved the parallel postulate using “computer magnification”.] ================ A Case Study of Academic Misconduct, Peer Review Failures and Journal Coverups of Published Errors* helmont1.tripod.com ================ whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ================ Guns in the medical literature--a failure of peer review. Suter EA. Abstract Errors of fact, design, and interpretation abound in the medical literature on guns and violence. The peer review process has failed to prevent publication of the errors of politicized, results-oriented research. Most of the data on guns and violence are available in the criminologic, legal, and social sciences literature, yet such data escape acknowledgment or analysis of the medical literature. Lobbyists and other partisans continue to promulgate the fallacies that cloud the public debate and impede the development of effective strategies to reduce violence in our society. This article examines a representative sample of politicized and incompetent research. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov