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: golfer72 who wrote (1534813)	4/22/2025 9:14:39 AM
From: Maple MAGA	3 Recommendations Recommended By golfer72 longz Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583846

There are numerous well-documented instances where peer review has made mistakes, failed to catch serious flaws, or even allowed fraud to pass through. Here are a few key categories and notable examples: 1. Mistakes & Failures in Peer Review Even in good faith, peer review can miss errors: Andrew Wakefield (1998) – The Lancet published his now-retracted paper falsely linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Despite being peer-reviewed, it took over a decade to retract. The damage to public health lingers today. "Arsenic Life" (2010) – NASA-supported study published in Science claimed a microbe could use arsenic instead of phosphorus. Heavily hyped, but quickly refuted by other scientists who pointed out obvious flaws. STAP Cells Scandal (2014) – Two papers in Nature claimed a simple acid bath could reprogram adult cells into pluripotent stem cells. The results were irreproducible, and one co-author committed suicide. Nature admitted failure in their review process. 2. Deliberate Fraud that Passed Peer Review Diederik Stapel – Dutch psychologist who fabricated data in dozens of papers over a decade. His fraud made it through peer review in top journals (Science, PNAS, JPSP). Paolo Macchiarini – A star surgeon who published fraudulent studies on synthetic trachea transplants in journals like The Lancet. The patients died, and peer reviewers had missed clear red flags. 3. Predatory and Fake Peer Review Some peer review systems are entirely broken or gamed: Fake Reviewer Scams – Some authors created fake reviewer accounts (sometimes even suggesting their own fake reviewers) to positively review their own papers. Springer and BioMed Central retracted hundreds of papers due to this. SCIgen Hoaxes – Randomly generated nonsense papers submitted to journals or conferences were accepted after “peer review.” One notorious case: over 120 gibberish papers were published in conferences and journals before being retracted. 4. Systemic Weaknesses Bias – Peer review can be biased against new ideas, small institutions, certain countries, or even individuals. Gatekeeping – Innovative or contrarian ideas often get rejected because they challenge consensus, not because they lack merit. Slow Corrections – Even when errors are caught, journals are slow to correct the record. Retractions can take years, if they happen at all. In Summary: Peer review is not a guarantee of truth or validity. It's better than nothing, but it is: Fallible (like all human systems), Vulnerable to bias, manipulation, and fraud, And often fails to replicate real-world rigor or reproducibility. Many scientists now argue that post-publication peer review, open data, and replication studies are essential complements.

To: golfer72 who wrote (1534813)	4/22/2025 9:16:19 AM
From: Maple MAGA	3 Recommendations Recommended By golfer72 longz Mick Mørmøny Respond to of 1583846

Climate science has had its share of peer review controversies, ranging from mistakes and exaggerations to accusations of bias, gatekeeping, and even fraud. Here's a breakdown: 1. IPCC Errors (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Even the world's leading climate body has published peer-reviewed content with serious flaws: Himalayan Glacier Melt Claim (2007) The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report claimed Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. This came from a non-peer-reviewed WWF report, based on a speculative magazine interview — not science. It was included despite not being peer-reviewed, and the IPCC admitted the mistake years later. Amazon Rainforest Sensitivity Another claim said that 40% of the Amazon could die off from slight rainfall reductions. Again, sourced from a non-peer-reviewed environmental group report, not from hard science. These errors survived internal peer review and were used to shape global policy. 2. Climategate (2009) Leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) revealed troubling behind-the-scenes behavior: Emails showed scientists discussing how to "hide the decline" in temperature reconstructions. There were hints of suppressing dissenting papers, manipulating review processes, and blacklisting journals. Phrases like “we can’t account for the lack of warming” and efforts to “keep skeptical papers out of peer-reviewed literature” undermined public trust. While investigations later cleared the scientists of "fraud," they exposed a toxic culture of peer review manipulation and gatekeeping. 3. Suppression of Dissenting Voices Several scientists have alleged censorship or bias in peer review: Dr. Judith Curry (former Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Tech): Claims climate science peer review is a "pal review" system, especially if you're not aligned with the consensus. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. (University of Colorado): Faced pressure and retaliation after publishing peer-reviewed research showing natural disasters are not increasing due to climate change. He was targeted by activists and even Congress. Dr. Lennart Bengtsson (University of Reading): Co-authored a study that questioned climate model reliability. After trying to publish it, he claimed that peer reviewers threatened his career, and he eventually withdrew from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. 4. Retractions and Overreach Some peer-reviewed climate papers had to be walked back: Nature paper (2022) claimed climate change was accelerating beyond prediction. It was widely cited by media — but later corrected due to a major math error in calculating heat uptake. "Ocean Heat Content" studies have occasionally used flawed methodologies or misinterpretations, later quietly corrected after criticism — sometimes years later. What Does This Mean? Peer review in climate science, like any field, is not infallible. The politicization of climate change has arguably made it more vulnerable to confirmation bias and tribal gatekeeping. That said, many critical findings have held up under scrutiny, especially the broad conclusion that human CO2 emissions affect the climate. The issue is degree, impact, and policy interpretation, which are more vulnerable to distortion.