On 8 May 2014 17:42, edward <[email protected]> wrote: > It is common to cite articles on the assumption that they would not have > been published without review and checking. It is unlikely that a published > journal article would be a complete hoax (as opposed to containing errors). > It was a mistake for the authors to cite a Wikipedia article, of course.
Zee problem is that we know that standard peer review is pretty useless at detecting fraud. Which is understandable. If I claim to have made a chemical and provide a plausible mechanism what are you going to do? Spectra are approach but its easy enough to calculate a spectra and add some noise and a couple of solvent peaks. Sure there are ways to counter that but they are a bit outside the skill set of your standard peer reviewers. So while it is unlikely that a published journal article would be a complete hoax (outside of the yield section anyway) there is little reason to think that has anything to do with peer review. > > >>You seem to think its straightforward. If you think that you should be > able to propose a study design. > > It is straightforward in my field. I have already studied most of the > Wikipedia articles in that area, and they all contain glaring errors. > Occasionally I clean some of it up, but then the errors quickly appear > again. > Please robustly define "glaring". Please also understand if I don't accept you as an impartial source on the matter rendering your subjective judgements of limited value. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
