Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6398192" data-attributes="member: 177">I'm sorry, Frank, but you have just made yourself a prime example.&nbsp; The article you cite fails to point out the really meaningful bit:They speak of 120 papers that have issues, between Springer and IEEE.&nbsp; Do you have any idea how many papers those two publish in a year?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Do you even know over what timespan the errant articles cover?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Then how can you tell if it is a major issue?&nbsp; You don't know what kind of failure rate this represents!&nbsp; Until you know the failure rate, you do *NOT* know the value.This, right here, is an example of peer review.&nbsp; An error in reasoning has been revealed by someone who knows a bit about the subject.&nbsp; Now comes the second step - correction.You can continue to hold your opinion, or you can realize the error, and recognize that maybe more research is needed before you can publish something on the topic.No it doesn't. Trolls feed on the reaction of the target.&nbsp; Surveys do not generally give the trolls feedback or reaction, and so do not feed their hunger.&nbsp; Did you read the original study?&nbsp; No?&nbsp; Then you don't know much about their methodology or statistical controls (the effects of systematic lies can be controlled for, you know), and maybe you should withhold comment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6398192, member: 177"] I'm sorry, Frank, but you have just made yourself a prime example. The article you cite fails to point out the really meaningful bit: They speak of 120 papers that have issues, between Springer and IEEE. Do you have any idea how many papers those two publish in a year? No? Do you even know over what timespan the errant articles cover? No? Then how can you tell if it is a major issue? You don't know what kind of failure rate this represents! Until you know the failure rate, you do *NOT* know the value. This, right here, is an example of peer review. An error in reasoning has been revealed by someone who knows a bit about the subject. Now comes the second step - correction. You can continue to hold your opinion, or you can realize the error, and recognize that maybe more research is needed before you can publish something on the topic. No it doesn't. Trolls feed on the reaction of the target. Surveys do not generally give the trolls feedback or reaction, and so do not feed their hunger. Did you read the original study? No? Then you don't know much about their methodology or statistical controls (the effects of systematic lies can be controlled for, you know), and maybe you should withhold comment. [/QUOTE]

Verification