Liberal Bias in Academia is Affecting Quality of Research
The $60,000 question is: What is anyone going to do about this?
Naomi Schaefer Riley of the New York Post reported.
Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research
How reliable is academic research? Not very it seems, after noting that the Journal of Vibration and Control, a reputable academic publication, had to retract 60 different papers over the summer.
The editors concluded that Chen-Yuan Chen, a researcher in Taiwan, had created a “peer-review and citation ring.”
OK, it’s not exactly a “Sopranos” plot. But it’s pretty shady for the world of higher education. Chen went to great lengths to make up fake e-mail addresses and even assume the names of other scientists to write approvingly of his own research.
In a sense, though, he was just exploiting the deep flaws of the peer review system. The academy has become a kind of club where friends give friends flattering assessments of research, which essentially guarantees promotions and tenure.
Here’s how the former editor of the British Medical Journal explained peer review:
“The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers.
If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This…is little better than tossing a coin.”But it’s not just the clubbiness of academia that is to blame. There is such ideological uniformity in the ivory tower that no one ever questions the important assumptions behind anyone else’s research.
Liberal bias in academia is destroying the integrity of research (The New York Post)
Comments
Climate Science is in “Full Fascist” mode with respect to peer review. It is used to keep valid ‘skeptical’ research from being published, used to control the political message reaching the public, used to control who gets tenure and who does not (publish or perish), and used to pass through questionable research (consider the Mann hockey stick) without critical oversight.