LogFAQs > #910558473

scar the 1 posted...

Yeah so where do you draw the line? If some of the conclusions are wild and some aren't? Etc. Again, the goal of these papers was always to make them seem as publishable as possible, not to make them look clearly and obviously fake. Most of them were rejected, and several of them got severe criticism in the review stage.

Okay, if we take this logic forward a bit, let's assume all journals that rejected were good journals, let's excluded the journal that is a known predatory journal, and let's exclude the paper that used fake data. So then we are left with 5/18 acceptances. That's a ~28% success rate. So either that's the baseline for false positives, or 28% of the time these uneducated lay people submitted real honest to god good work accidentally while trying to submit a hoax. The latter seems unreasonable.

But really, to take this argument further, I would need to do more research and actually read the hoax submissions, prior and post peer review, to see where things might have gone wrong.

Darkman124 posted...

TBH, the big question this raises for me isn't about the individual journals, or the field.

It's about the internal review process. If it's this easy to get published, why do professors drag their feet for so long to put out publications on existing work? A lot of grad students' careers stagnate as their profs act like the review process is the equivalent of walking through Dante's Inferno, when in reality, as stated, there is heavy reliance on trust.

But that's just the thing. Publishing isn't a cake walk. It's a lot of time and effort with extremely hefty demands made by reviewers at each stage, at least in my field. My timecourse of publication attempts doesn't look too pretty:
https://imgur.com/aCDrebO

There's almost certainly field by field variation in the nature and rigor of peer review.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]