Re: OT: about peer review

On 13/07/2024 14:30, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 05:00:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:
 

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
  There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
..
yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

 Every now and then someone writes a totally nonsense paper, basically
a parody, and gets it reviewed and published. AI take the work out of
even that.

Some of the parodies are so good that they get deliberately reprinted.
One such that I can find on ADS in full is:
"On the imperturbability of Elevator Operators", Candlestickmaker, S.
(after the style of astrophysicist Chandrasekhar)
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1972QJRAS..13...63C/0000063.000.html
Several others also exist as spoofs/in jokes published in the style of various famous theoreticians and journals and have been known to end up in bound volumes since librarians tend to go by the front covers of the periodicals and don't actually read the contents.
Another I can vaguely recall was "Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown" and another one that Dirac thought so hilarious he paid to have it published in the exact layout of a specific learned journal.
Random Walk in Science has a few of them in.
--
Martin Brown