>>16261748
reminder that any blind study can never be trusted

Actually kind of surprising the fraction mentioned is 1/3, I'd have guessed something closer to 100% given that academia is an entirely corrupted and morally bankrupt institution

>>16261748
>As the production of scientific manuscripts and journal options both increase, the peer review process remains at the center of quality control
Is this what they really think? Reproduction is the scientific quality control. Peer review is quality control of form: grammar, argument, etc.
Where direct reproduction is difficult or impossible, meta analysis could also act as scientific quality control.

I don't think that proves that strong of a conclusion even if this data is the opposite of what you would expect.

>>16262820
I think the data is exactly what I would expect, namely my guess is that people who are subject to experiments like this simply act more critically towards the material. Especially in a highly niche field where reviewers may just not be used to that sort of thing. Like if your boss asks you to review this mystery paper that's double sekrit today then at least I think
I would be more critical of that. Also depending on how they select which papers to double blind there could simply be a correlation vs causation error, namely that single blinded paper from a famous scientist may be more likely to be accepted (and perhaps added to the single blind pile in the first place) because of it's higher quality and not because it's so unfair while low quality spam may be thrown into the double blind pile.

>>16262820
OP is a lying sack of shit. The study does not claim this.

>Results: Data from 6,606 manuscripts from 2011–2021 showed significant increases in reviewer invitations. Specifically, four journals showed statistically significant increases in reviewer invitations while two showed no change. Review times changed relatively little (± 2 weeks), and we found no concerning patterns in reviewer agreement. However, we documented a consistently higher rejection rate—around 20% higher—of double-blinded manuscripts when compared to single-blinded manuscripts.
Conclusions

>Conclusions: Our findings likely represent broader trends across fisheries science publications, and possibly extend to other life science disciplines. Because peer review remains a primary tool for scientific quality control, authors and editors are encouraged to understand the process and evaluate its performance at whatever level can help in the creation of trusted science. Minimally, our findings can help the six journals we investigated to better understand and improve their peer review processes.

Oh yeah, OP also forgot to mention that the publications in question are six fisheries "science" journals.

>>16263195
>the publications in question are six fisheries "science" journals.
you'll find the same is true in any other field

>>16263957
[citation needed]
Also the paper doesn't even remotely conclude what you are claiming.

>>16264077
How should he know? He never read it.

>>16264077
>the paper doesn't even remotely conclude what you are claiming.
yes it does

>>16261748
>at least a third of academic publications
100% of academic publications are fake. People in academia are useless so they need to tell lies in order to justify their existence. Anyone who isn't useless ends up outside of academia

>>16263195
"peer review processes need improvement" is just a polite PC way of saying obvious collusion is rampant
its similar to calling the massive epidemic of outright fraud and lying in scientific publications "the replication crisis" as if its all a big accident

>>16264236
you never read it and you can't do math so you wouldn't understand the numerical content even if you did read it

are there any reasonable explanations for higher rejections rates with increased levels of anonymity other than collusion? "oy vey it was just a coincidence" isn't a reasonable explanation

>>16269740
No, collusion is the only way to explain it.

>science journal retracts 10 papers for compromised peer review
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/07/02/food-science-journal-retracts-10-papers-for-compromised-peer-review/

>>16271746
More evidence that the only articles which have not yet been retracted are the ones that don't get significant scrutiny.

>>16262820
The data is as expected, the only surprise is that the magnitude of cheating revealed isn't as severe as one would predict

>>16275165
>the magnitude of cheating revealed
this is only the magnitude of cheating revealed by comparing the results of peer reviews with different levels of anonymity, its not an all encompassing measure of academic fraud, its only a proof that some collusion between authors and reviews is commonplace

>>16271746
>food science
of course lol

>>16276289
theres tons of retractions in every discipline, they're all just a corrupt and dishonest as the one in that headline, goyslop science just happened to be the one that made retraction watch's headlines this week

>>16261748
Some high-profile scientists get their names in everything. I wouldn't be at all surprised if their names and their prestigious institutes also significantly helped their manuscripts get through peer review.

But another thing to remember is that peer review is just a small part of the process. In many journals, Nature for instance, the editor rejects an order of magnitude more articles than peer-review does.

>>16273158
>vainly spend tens of thousands of dollars to get another worthless trash academic article published
>nobody even bothers to read it
imagine being conceited and self obsessed enough to waste your life doing that.

>>16279868
What do you expect from people who devote their lives to trying to pose as geniuses. Theres a massive difference between trying to pose as something and trying to legitimately become that something. The former is trying specifically to not become that something, but only trying to become fake version of that something

>>16281078
they wouldn't need to do the posturing if they really were what they were trying to pose as

of course there is tons of collusion and cheating in peer review. each subfield has small handful of people in it and they all meet several times a year at conferences even if its "blind" everyone doing the reviews know who the authors are and they all have "one hand washes the other" deals with each other.

>>16283310
Thats how it is in astronomy. Research proposals are peer reviewed, thats how telescope usage is assigned. So everyone knows what everyone else is researching and there is no possibility of legitimately anonymous peer review.

>>16284524
its like that in every field, the idea of anonymity in peer review is a farce, everyone knows its a lie

How do we build a system that avoids this inherent flaw?

>>16270836
What about reputation bias?

>>16286451
Racism, sexism and antisemitism. Thats how the system was built up in the first place back when it functioned.
Shitskins, jews, atheists and women are desperate to take it over because they too stupid to construct their own institutions so their only hope is trying to imitate the accomplishments of white Christians.

>>16286108
>everyone knows its a lie
The retarded soiyentism worshippers don't seem to be able to wrap their tiny little minds around the idea

>>16289263
dumb people are dumb, they do dumb things and have dumb beliefs

>>16286716
They're both pretty much the same thing

>>16261748
>illicit collusion
theres nothing illegal about it, thats why everyone does it. there is no penalty for cheating in academia, cheating is encouraged and rewarded

File: gay ivy.jpg (172 KB, 945x2048)

172 KB JPG

>>16292990
>cheating is encouraged and rewarded
as long as it's done to promote the desired narratives, but don't get on the wrong side of those narratives, if you do then your cheating will come back to haunt you

>>16294273
>criticize Israel
>suddenly get accused of plagiarism
cohencidences

>>16261748
peer review is a corrupt gay circlejerk, everyone who has any experience with it already knows that

>>16296855
>peer review is a corrupt gay circlejerk
thats by design