Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
35 online now:
dwise1, jar, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,114 Year: 12,862/23,288 Month: 587/1,527 Week: 26/240 Day: 7/19 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   When Peer Review Fails: Bad Science Papers of the Week
Member (Idle past 567 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012

Message 1 of 27 (779422)
03-04-2016 3:59 AM

No one here at EvC has mentioned this yet, so I'd like to bring attention to a recent paper that was published by PLOS ONE, entitled "Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living."

A glance at the title of the paper reveals nothing particularly strange. However, one need only read the abstract to come across this:

"The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way."

Of course, the broader scientific community took to Twitter in a valiant effort to understand how such a paper could have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Fortunately, PLOS ONE has retracted the paper, immediately apologized, and appears to be going in a frenzy in an attempt to clean up this mess. See here for some discussion and comments regarding PLOS ONE.

I'd like to use this thread to:

1. Discuss any bad science papers that somehow make it to print.

2. Stimulate broader discussion of the peer-review process and how it can be improved.

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2016 1:40 PM Genomicus has responded

Member (Idle past 567 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012

Message 20 of 27 (779481)
03-04-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
03-04-2016 1:40 PM


To suggest brilliant design is designed is just the height of pseudo-science and I am outraged, for if there was a creator God we would not expect evidence of design we would expect evidence of, "not design", just like we would expect that if you are a qualified scientist you should have no scientific credentials and if you are a human male you should have female genitalia.

Dewd, I hold rather unorthodox views when it comes to the origin of biochemical complexity, as the record of my past threads will demonstrate. That doesn't mean I shouldn't point out sloppy science papers, does it? Anyways, you can get back to trolling the internets.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 03-04-2016 1:40 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020