Wiley shuts down 19 science journals and retracts 11,000 gobbledygook papers
joannenova.com.au
joannenova.com.au
"artificial intelligence" => "counterfeit consciousness" / "man-made brainpower" / "fake knowledge"
"mean square error" => "mean square blunder"
"sensitive data" => "touchy information"
"signal to noise" => "flag to clamor"
"breast cancer" => "bosom peril"
"big data" => "huge information"
"ant colony" => "underground creepy crawly region"
"Navier-Stokes" => "Navier-Stocks"
"NP-hard" => "NP-difficult"
"end-users" => "stop-customers"
"phising attack" => "phishing assault"
"emission of CO2" => "excretion of CO2"
"deep learning" => "profound education"
"decision tree" => "choice bush"
"system failure" => "framework disappointment"
"real time" => "genuine time"
"fuzzy logic" => "feathery rationale"
"child nodes" => "tyke hubs"
"state-of-the-art" => "United States of America-of-the-cleverness"
"directional (graph) axes" => "directional tomahawks"
"magic mushrooms" => "wizardry mushrooms"
"max pooling" => "Georgia home boy pooling" (!?)
"malicious parties" => "compromising get-togethers"
"excretion of CO2" reminds us that biological processes also emit it.
"Georgia home boy" and "max" are both slang terms for the drug gamma hydroxybutyrate
P.S. scanned 130 million papers! WTF!
[1] https://forbetterscience.com/2021/05/26/the-chinese-paper-mi...
Hindawi is well known as a publisher of complete junk. No one takes any of their journals seriously. Baffling that Wiley would accept the risk.
Why can't we show the same rigor with scientific papers?
> The ABC is part of the reason science is corrupt to the core. The ABC Science Unit is paid to hold junk-science’s feet to the fire, instead it provides cover for the pagan witchcraft that passes for modern research.
Please. That's hyperbole. It's extremely unfair to the ABC science team.
Totally on form for her to be bagging the ABC, one of her favourite targets.
Interesting reading sometimes, but also read the sources. Her interpretations can be wild. Thankfully, she usually cites the sources.
oh god, no
Nova is happy enough to sing the praises of the Australian Liberal | National coalition when it comes to climate (or lack thereof) policy.
They (husband and wife) jumped on fossil fuel funded think tank money some decades back and make bank as "voices of reason" casting FUD on the waters and rehashing the greatest hits of How to Lie with Statistics in new(ish) and innovative ways, mostly her anti-climate science stuff is straight up misdirect which both herself and husband are qualified to know is incorrect.
I don't agree with her take on any of it, but I'm also glad that someone is out there saying it (while citing their sources, obviously). We need this. We may not like it, but we need it.
<prepares to be downvoted to oblivion> ;)
If everyone follows dogma, we get more dogma. Everything becomes dogmatic. We end up with Lysenkoism and science stops working.
Tolerance for other points of view is good. You never know, they might be right. Plate tectonics was prompted by someone saying "isn't it weird that Africa looks like it fits into South America?" and was ridiculed for it. This is not uncommon in science.
I know the climate science community has been under attach by the fossil fuel lobby using scientific doubt as a lever to create real problems. But that doesn't mean we should abandon doubt in science. It is necessary to doubt scientists, make them prove their case. Scepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific principle. No-one gets to say "I am a professional scientist, therefore what I say is true" because then that stops being science and starts being religion. Yes it's painful, even harmful, when a muppet on Facebook with zero knowledge is contradicting someone who spent years or even decades studying a subject, but that's better than going the other way; where no-one is allowed to contradict the official truth.
Having someone like Jo Nova screaming weird shit at the fringes of society is good for science.
Nova posts on climate get bandied about in online heated climate discussions a lot and there are sites that take each of these (and other such articles) apart piece by piece and rebut them on their arguments. Theses posts don't make the case that they claim to and people with a BSc (like "Nova") should be aware of just how weak their own argumentss are particularly when presented time and time again with dot points on the problems.
After literal decades of this it's difficult to believe that Nova is still acting in good faith, convinced that everybody in the climate sciences is wrong and she alone is a light of truth in the wilderness.
Other blog posts on other topics vary, this linked one is a bit OTT about a take down of AI generated research papers - as others have pointed out there are better articles reporting the same thing, and I agree that such papers are a problem.
This will no doubt be forever future folded into a narative about the failures of "Big Science" that's hardly applicable save by adjacency.
> I don't agree with her take on any of it, but I'm also glad that someone is out there saying it.
I certainly wouldn't suppress it, and frankly if Jo Nova et al are the best "science" voices the anti-climate crowd can muster it only serves to strengthen the case for AGW.
(Checking the quality of the journals is a very difficult task. We have that problem from time to time to select the graduate teaching assistants. Let's say that each time the list of good journals is sligtly differentand every time nobody is happy.)
(Checking the quality of the papers is even harder. Just count them, or count the citations, or something.)
Another posibility is borderline crackpots. You can spot them when the journal has too many single author papers. They essentialy pay and get a very credulous peer review and later nobody reads the paper, but the author is happy to have a published article.
(From time to time there are good single author papers. It's geting rare, but it's possible. Anyway, it's a red flag, and if you see many of them in a journal you should get suspictious.)
The original WSJ source might be a better link.
I'm surprised to find myself saying that.
Imo the WSJ's science and tech reporting is actually top notch. Just make sure it's a real newsroom article, not an op-ed, since op-eds don't go through the same fact-checking.
Archive non-paywall link: https://archive.is/WZLQp
Why submit blogspam with snarky “commentary” with no substance at all.