This article will define, explore, discuss and analyze the benefits, drawbacks and weaknesses of the peer review process in general. More specifically, this article will go into the large and negative consequences of the peer review process in the monopolistic nuclear industry specifically. Extensive evidence and interviews will be provided that detail the corruption of the peer review process within several monopolistic industries that exist today.
PEER REVIEW IN WRITING IS DEFINED
In the simplest terms, peer review is writers responding to one another's work in an honest critical way, designed to improve the overall results and skills of the writer. Peer review can consist of class discussions or online discussions. Peer review is critical to the publication process. A draft copy is sent to reviewers, who suggest modifications, and then a final draft is submitted to the same board.
Professional writing practice includes peer review, in the form of editing and proof reading for example. On a basic level, peer review at it's best improves the person who is researching, studying and writing, but ONLY if the peers are oriented towards this result and don't have other hidden ulterior motives.
Professional writing practice includes peer review, in the form of editing and proof reading for example. On a basic level, peer review at it's best improves the person who is researching, studying and writing, but ONLY if the peers are oriented towards this result and don't have other hidden ulterior motives.
PEER REVIEW IN SCIENCE
Dr. Kevin Padian - Professor of Integrative Biology explains the scientific peer review process and the debate between evolution vs. creation.Video from: Scientists Interviewed by Qualitative Researcher, Allison Hoffman
Many people consider scientists to be experts. Most people assume that all scientists and doctors are always right and agree with each other, but that is not correct. Science (and medicine) has almost nothing to do with having an advanced degree. Science has nothing to do with being 'right' just because one has a degree or some kind of advanced knowledge that no one else has.
Priests are authority figures. The Pope is held to be infallible, right on par with God himself. In science, no one (including PhD's and MD's are considered to be infallible, unlike religion. Science is not about 'experts' or infallible Gods, but about the logical process that is science. Science is testing hypotheses, subjecting them to analysis and testing, and then submitting the result to a peer review process. If you are a PhD scientist and you publish a book about science, that does not mean what is is written in this book is right, scientific or even worthy of reading.
EVERY PEER REVIEW STUDY PUBLISHED SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE COPIED EXACTLY AND GET THE SAME RESULT EVERY TIME
Ideally, the peer review process is one where a study about something is published, together with the details about how the study was done, sufficient for some other scientist or even a layman to reproduce the same study specifics and then reach the exact same conclusions. It is all about the facts, just the facts, and nothing else.
True science is about observation, doing research around that observation, reaching a particular conclusion and drawing a result from that research, using a specific and very detailed set of parameters that should be able to be reproduced by anyone, anywhere.
If the result is valid and the conclusion is sound and scientific, anyone around the world should be able to do the exact same research, and reach the same conclusion, based on the same parameters and then get the exact same set of results or data. This is the essence of science, which is based on impartial observation, study and results that can be reproduced over and over again by other scientists or researchers, no matter what their belief system is, even if is repeated 100 or 1,000 times.
If the result is valid and the conclusion is sound and scientific, anyone around the world should be able to do the exact same research, and reach the same conclusion, based on the same parameters and then get the exact same set of results or data. This is the essence of science, which is based on impartial observation, study and results that can be reproduced over and over again by other scientists or researchers, no matter what their belief system is, even if is repeated 100 or 1,000 times.
Ideally, the a rigorous and impartial peer review process is designed to filter out cultural bias, profit motive, political agendas, need for power or acknowledgement, personal ego, religion, industry protection, and other non scientific influences from what are supposed to be truly scientific study results.
WIKIPEDIA - DIFFICULTIES WITH PEER REVIEW PROCESS
"A reviewer at the National Institutes of Health evaluates a grant proposal.
Another difficulty that peer review organizers face is that, with respect to some manuscripts or proposals, there may be few scholars who truly qualify as experts. Such a circumstance often frustrates the goals of reviewer anonymity and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. It also increases the chances that an organizer will not be able to recruit true experts – people who have themselves done work similar to that under review, and who can read between the lines.
In "double-blind" review, which is more common in the humanities than in the hard sciences, the identity of the authors is concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, lest the knowledge of authorship or concern about disapprobation from the author bias their review. Critics of the double-blind review process point out that, despite any editorial effort to ensure anonymity, the process often fails to do so, since certain approaches, methods, writing styles, notations, etc., point to a certain group of people in a research stream, and even to a particular person.[38][39]
In many fields of big science, the publicly available operation schedules of major equipments, such as telescopes or synchrotrons, would make the authors' names obvious to anyone who would care to look them up. Proponents of double-blind review argue that it performs no worse than single-blind, and that it generates a perception of fairness and equality in academic funding and publishing.[40] Single-blind review is strongly dependent upon the goodwill of the participants, but no more so than double-blind review with easily identified authors.
A more rigorous standard of accountability is known as an audit. Because reviewers are not paid, they cannot be expected to put as much time and effort into a review as an audit requires. Therefore, academic journals such as Science, organizations such as the or the American Geophysical Union, and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation maintain and archive scientific data and methods in the event another researcher wishes to replicate or audit the research after publication.[41][42][43]
EDITORS OF AMA AND LANCET COMMENT ON CORRUPTION OF THE PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL INDUSTRY
Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarked:
There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[47] (even in peer reviewed journals)
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said: "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong".[48]
ALLEGATIONS OF BIAS AND SUPPRESSION
The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.[49] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[50][51] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[52][53][54]
Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[55][56] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[57]
A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.[58] A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[59]
PEER REVIEW FAILURES
Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.[60] Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared and the process is not designed to detect fraud.[61]
An experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers fail to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results.[62] When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted.
Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.[63][64][65]
Corrective measures
Many journals deal with peer review failures by publishing letters,[68] though some opt not to do so. Retraction of an article may be required. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. However, neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if a peer review failure occurred.
Examples
"Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox."[69]
The trapezoidal rule, in which the method of Riemann sums for numerical integration was republished in a Diabetes research journal, Diabetes Care.[70] The method is almost always taught in high school calculus, and was thus considered an example of an extremely well known idea being re-branded as a new discovery.
A conference organized by the Wessex Institute of Technology was the target of an exposé by three researchers who wrote nonsensical papers (including one that was composed of random phrases). They reported that the papers were "reviewed and provisionally accepted" and concluded that the conference was an attempt to "sell" publication possibilities to less experienced or naive researchers.[71]
Refereeing performed on behalf of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers has also been subject to criticism after fake papers were discovered in conference publications, most notably by Labbé and Labbé and a researcher using the pseudonym of Herbert Schlangemann.[72][73][74][75][76][77]"
Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
WHO REVIEWS THE EDITORS OF JOURNALS IN HUGE MONOPOLISTIC INDUSTRIES, WITH BUILT IN SELF SERVING PROFIT MOTIVES AND BIASES?
Who checks on the peer reviewing editors and referees when it comes to monopolistic industries who have self serving profit motivations for example? After all, the peer review process inside the nuclear industry, or the carbon fuel industry, or the sugar industry, or the GMO industry, is only responsible for their own industry, and no one from outside of the industry is part of the industry peer review process, to see if there is even a shred of truth to what that industry publishes via the peer review process.
Bottom line, anything to do with a sugar industry peer review process will assure the media and public that sugar is good for everyone.
Anything to do with a nuclear industry peer review process will assure the media and public that nuclear in all forms is clean, cheap, safe, green, and good for everyone, and so on. Everything else will be denied publication, and relegated to the non peer reviewed journals, outside of the monopoly industry and 'experts' control. Then those 'scientific' studies can be put down and dismissed because they were denied publication.
Anything published in the medical industrial complex will be biased towards whatever supports high profits and continued support of existing paradigms, while everything else will be denied publication.
In every industry that relies on a positive image and reputation for continued sales, all of the peer reviewed studies and publications will tend to reach this very 'natural and maximum short term profit oriented' conclusion, correct?
After all if problems are pointed at and published inside of a peer reviewed industry associated publication, that may turn away customers, slow down the growth of that industry, decrease profits and it may even make shareholders angry. So everyone stays on board and plays by the 'stay positive' and 'make the statistics and studies fit what is needed' rules inside of the peer reviewed industry publications. After all, the next paycheck requires this result, and no other will do.
ANY SCIENTIST INSIDE OF MONOPOLIES WHO DOES NOT PLAY BY THE RULES IS FORCED OUT OF CLOSED CIRCLE
Read about the example of what happened to Dr. Gofman, who at one point was the head of a nuclear lab. He was forced out of the industry and could not find another job in it, after he published truthful, scientific information that cast doubts on what the nuclear industry kept claiming was true, which is that no one ever dies from low dose radiation.
Dr. Sternglass And Gofman; Total Numbers Of Infant/Child Deaths From X-Rays, Nuclear Power Plants And Nuclear Bomb Testing
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/dr-sternglass-dr-gofman-on-infantchild.htmlPEER REVIEWED SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT TRUSTING, BUT VERIFYING
From the Economist; "A SIMPLE idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”....But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity. Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis (see article). A rule of thumb among biotechnology venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated. Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm, Amgen, found they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. (for more details, click on link)
Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists.
The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be, either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested. (For more on this subject, click on the following link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY
A tongue in cheek video about the peer review process and a glimpse into the potential political or personality issues behind the scenes.
MORE PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW
Peer review boards are made up of PhD experts in the same field as the research being conducted. There may be dozens of people on any particular peer review board, but usually only 1 to 4 people actually look at any particular article or study before it is published. The peer review board may look very impressive initially, at first glance.
To get something published, only a few easy questions may have to be answered by email, before final publishing. Most often, no in depth analysis, further studies, or replication of results is required by either the researcher or by anyone else before being published in a peer reviewed publication.
To get something published, only a few easy questions may have to be answered by email, before final publishing. Most often, no in depth analysis, further studies, or replication of results is required by either the researcher or by anyone else before being published in a peer reviewed publication.
Now let's assume that you are a friend of the person who is doing the peer review of your study or article, because in the nuclear industry for example, the number of 'experts' who can act as reviewers are too few and most of them are friends or comrades, each of them defending each other against 'outsiders'. Any questions to an author of a report, article or study will be informal softballs, rather than a deep formal inquiry and analysis to see if this article is based on true science, and not on other hidden motivations, such as protecting profits, industry reputation, or maintaining funding streams.
Many peer review boards are entirely self serving, with no 'outsiders' or disagreement with 'orthodox' beliefs allowed. For example, the nuclear industry related peer reviewed publications do not allow anyone to be on their peer review boards unless they have a pro nuclear industry viewpoint and a pro hormesis theory 'knowledge', which is taught in all nuclear and medical science classrooms.
This basic and fundamental fatal flaw built into the foundation of the whole 'scientific' structure introduces bias and corruption into anything that is published via the nuclear industry peer review process, because it allows no other results other than the 'accepted' ones which ultimately rely on bogus belief systems and flawed science. Unless there is a healthy and rigorous debate about the flaws or merits of a particular article, study or conclusion, especially around nuclear energy and radiation exposure, bias or corruption is automatically built into every peer reviewed study or article from that publication.
For more details and proofs about the built in corruption within the various industries that make up civilization, click on;
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
CORRUPTION WITHIN THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY PEER REVIEW PROCESS, REQUIRES A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE INDUSTRY INVOLVED
Within the nuclear industry peer review publications, any conclusion involving nuclear HAS TO BE GOOD. The overwhelming published studies involving radiation or nuclear energy in peer reviewed publications show that nuclear anything is positive and good for humanity, while not causing any harm. In other words, no one died from Fukushima and no one will ever die from Fukushima radiation, based on nothing more than a statistical formula, while ignoring all actual evidence from the field and actual real world medical studies, epidemiological studies and more.
This same problem is an issue in peer review boards all across the spectrum of science, in all directions, unless they make a point of creating a peer review board with an equal number of opposing viewpoints and subjecting each article or study to opposing viewpoints from the pro industry 'norm'. Relying only on statistics and ignoring all actual evidence and/or medical studies from outside of the nuclear industry is a sure sign of a profit motivated organization pushing industry required results, rather than a truly scientific process.
A good statistician can come up with any result desired, just by running numbers through a computer program, which of course, no one else has access to, except others inside the industry. This also requires that no one knows the assumptions that are built into the computer program, or how it works via modeling, dilution and contracting of affected people.
This same problem is an issue in peer review boards all across the spectrum of science, in all directions, unless they make a point of creating a peer review board with an equal number of opposing viewpoints and subjecting each article or study to opposing viewpoints from the pro industry 'norm'. Relying only on statistics and ignoring all actual evidence and/or medical studies from outside of the nuclear industry is a sure sign of a profit motivated organization pushing industry required results, rather than a truly scientific process.
A good statistician can come up with any result desired, just by running numbers through a computer program, which of course, no one else has access to, except others inside the industry. This also requires that no one knows the assumptions that are built into the computer program, or how it works via modeling, dilution and contracting of affected people.
CORRUPTED PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS CAN AND DO BLOCK ALL TRUE SCIENCE AND DATA FROM GOING OUT TO MEDIA AND PUBLIC
If the peer review board is made up only of people who are pro nuclear and who work inside the industry on top of that, it will also mean that no one is published who comes up with any negative result around nuclear energy or radiation. Coming up with results that would harm the appearance of the industry that they work in is not allowed in the nuclear industry as a rule.
This automatic conflict of interest of peer review boards who are also people working in the same industry that is being held up to the light of truth, creates a legitimate reason to doubt all studies and works published in a peer reviewed nuclear industry publications.
This automatic conflict of interest of peer review boards who are also people working in the same industry that is being held up to the light of truth, creates a legitimate reason to doubt all studies and works published in a peer reviewed nuclear industry publications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufeKYy_6Ls
Arnie Gunderson is a nuclear expert, and he talks in the video above about the problems with publishing data within the nuclear industry, such as tuna radiation levels for example. He says; "We are seeing a lot of resistance to publishing this data in the peer review journals, allowing this information to get through. Again, the peer review journals are controlled by the nuclear priesthood..."
A truly scientific peer review process is not labeled 'a priesthood'. Only religions have priests that are infallible and treated just like God. Science is not about that, or it shouldn't be.
Another way to make studies critical of the industry disappear is to have them published by certain players who hide them away, where only a few 'wealthy' folks can see them, despite the studies being paid for by taxpayers. How does that work? Click on the link to find out more. Bottom line, if no one can afford to read the studies, they don't exist.
Why Are 4,000 Fukushima Peer Reviewed Studies By Elsevier, Springer And Wiley Hidden From Public View?
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/01/why-are-fukushima-peer-reviewed-studies.html
PUBLISHING A NEGATIVE STUDY INSIDE THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY MEANS LOSS OF FUNDING FOR SCIENTIST
When one adds the profit motive on top of conflict of interest, plus the desire to hide information that may doom the whole industry to extinction, then one really starts having doubts about the whole peer review process, for the nuclear industry in particular, but also in other scientific domains.
In the nuclear industry in particular, very few scientists have PhD's, compared to other fields of scientific inquiry for example. The small number of advanced degrees means that the same small group is found serving in all peer review committees, which makes the peer review process in that industry VERY prone to error, corruption and bias than in a field where there are many more PhD's candidates to pick from and more of an open and diverse opinion set within the peer review process and committee make up.
When the industry itself has a bias in favor of one point of view or another, even if it is not scientific, this introduces another element that leads to corruption of the peer review process. In the nuclear industry, it is well known that scientists and researchers are not allowed to speak or publish anything negative about nuclear radiation or power, or they lose their source of funding, and then will never work in the industry again.
The nuclear industry is supposed to be purely scientific, open to all points of view and in pursuit of truth, but because this basic corruption within the industry that does not allow any other opinion other than the 'right' one, it also leads to a deadly corrosive and corrupting influence in the peer review process within this particular industry.
Scientific Nuclear Fraud At Major Colleges, Universities and Nuclear Research Facilities Uncovered And Analyzed; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/05/scientific-nuclear-fraud-at-major.html
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY CORRUPTS MASS MEDIA REPORTING VIA INFLUENCE AND BLOCKS TRUE DATA RELEASES
Now add on top of all of the above, the major and corrupting media and political influence by the nuclear industry. The nuclear and carbon fuel industry have huge advertising budgets with the mass media and they donate huge amounts of money to the political process. If they do not like something being said or a particular viewpoint of someone on air or in political office, they call up the media company or politician and order that view to be suppressed or that show to be yanked.
Any opposing view to the nuclear industry 'norm' disappears, because the pro nuclear industry media company, colleges, universities and politicians need that revenue from that major advertiser or supporter. This same process happens in universities and colleges with the same result. Money and a pro industry viewpoint corruption process, trumps the ideals of a rigorous, truth oriented, scientific, peer review process.
Bottom line, if no one can reproduce or replicate the research and results being published inside of the nuclear peer reviewed organizations, and no one outside of the nuclear industry can get the same data set out of it, what benefit is there to the peer review process or to the publications airing this particular point of view?
The Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons, Faux Media and Fraudulent Science; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/primer-in-art-of-deception-cult-of.html
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/primer-in-art-of-deception-cult-of.html
Operation Mockingbird; How The CIA Controls The Mass Media News; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/05/via-operation-mockingbird-cia-is-now.html
US Media Cross Ownership, FCC Regulation History, And Potential Solution; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/us-media-cross-ownership-fcc-regulation.html
Fake Mass Media News; The Many Ways The Viewing Public Is 'Programmed' And TV Programming Is Censored; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fake-news-one-of-many-ways-programming.html
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/05/outfoxed-rupert-murdochs-war-on.html
How Corporations Control Governments, Media, Politicians; Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-corporations-control-governments.html
Bernie Sanders on Why Big Media Shouldn’t Get Bigger; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/bernie-sanders-on-why-big-media.html
DAVID FREEMAN DISCUSSES HOW NUCLEAR INDUSTRY IS A CULT RELIGION, NOT BASED ON SCIENCE OR TRUE PEER REVIEW PROCESS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeZ4NZbQI6Y
Dr. Caldicott's guest this week is David Freeman, a senior advisor with Friends of the Earth's nuclear campaign. Freeman has more than four decades of experience directing federal, regional and local energy policies. He was appointed chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, where he stopped the construction of eight large nuclear power plants and pioneered a massive energy conservation program. Subsequently, Freeman served for two decades as general manager of several large public power agencies including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the New York Power Authority and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. He is a renowned expert on clean energy, efficiency and the risks of nuclear power.
David Freeman talks about how the nuclear industry does not go on facts, but rather is made up of 'true believers' who are members of a cult religion. He explains that most of the nuclear power uses today are based on guilt, due to dropping two nuclear bombs and killing tens of thousands of civilians. The Atoms For Peace campaign was to address the guilt everyone felt about the use of atomic bombs on two cities.
He also explains that no one can get to be an NRC board member unless they are a 'true believer'. The pro nuclear industry always makes sure that they have a majority of their true believers on these peer review boards, panels, in labs, schools, colleges and universities, and then donate money to politicians to get them to support the whole cabal as well.
Then the mass media is owned by huge pro nuclear corporations such as Westinghouse, GE and others, so that never a negative word is heard about anything nuclear. After all, it would their business of selling nuclear plants, nuclear medical devices and atom bombs.
CORRUPTION IN THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY PEER REVIEW PROCESS
The Wall Street Journal reports that; "In June, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and responsible for $30 billion in annual government-funded research, held a meeting to discuss ways to ensure that more published scientific studies and results are accurate. According to a 2011 report in the monthly journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn't be reproduced.
That finding was a bombshell. Replication is a fundamental tenet of science, and the hallmark of peer review is that other researchers can look at data and methodology and determine the work's validity. Dr. Collins and co-author Dr. Lawrence Tabak highlighted the problem in a January 2014 article in Nature. "What hope is there that other scientists will be able to build on such work to further biomedical progress," if no one can check and replicate the research, they wrote.
But even the most rigorous peer review can be effective only if authors provide the data they used to reach their results, something that many still won't do and that few journals require for publication. Some publishers have begun to mandate open data. In March the Public Library of Science began requiring that study data be publicly available.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/hank-campbell-the-corruption-of-peer-review-is-harming-scientific-credibility-1405290747
CodeShutdown November 19, 2014 "Lovium, the psychology of humans is that beliefs are not easily altered by facts. And facts themselves hard to come by. Peer review papers are the only accepted standard for "truth" in science, but unfortunately cant be relied on.The most downloaded document of all time on PLoS, the Public Library of Medicine’s peer-reviewed, open access journal, is the essay “Why Most Published Research Findings are False” . John P. A Ioannidis explains in detail how “It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”
So thats the first problem; who are you going to believe? Apparently no "official" source because; According to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, “No U.S. government or international agency is monitoring the spread of low levels of radiation from Fukushima along the West Coast of North America and around the Hawaiian Islands.”
SPECIFIC STUDY AROUND SHOWING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND 'OUTSIDER' RESULTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9aPw1PNgfQ
The pro nuclear industry peer reviewed journals and organizations all universally report that there has been zero deaths around Fukushima. But if one goes outside of this small group of pro nuclear priesthood, the results change dramatically, not just for this nuclear accident, but all others as well.
Fetuses, newborns and the elderly are at highest risk from exposure from radiation. Peer Reviewed Study Shows 14,000 U.S. Deaths from Fukushima
Dr. Janette Sherman, M.D., Internist and Toxicologist. [...] There's shocking new evidence out that the Fukushima disaster may have led to the deaths of as many as 14,000 people...in America, just in 2011. For more on this -- I'm joined by Dr. Janette Sherman -- Internist and Toxicologist -- and co-author of a new report on the link between an increase in deaths here in America and the ongoing Fukushima nuclear crisis.
Janette Sherman, M.D. specializes in internal medicine and toxicology with an emphasis on chemicals and nuclear radiation that cause illness, including cancer and birth defects. She graduated from Western Michigan University with majors in biology and chemistry and from the Wayne State University College of Medicine. Prior to medical school, she worked for the Atomic Energy Commission (forerunner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) at the University of California in Berkeley, and for the U.S. Navy Radiation Defense Laboratory in San Francisco.
Thus began her long-time involvement with the subject of nuclear radiation. From 1976--1982 Dr. Sherman served on the advisory board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act. She has been an advisor to the National Cancer After Fukushima, there has been an increase in deaths in the United States — This has been corroborated by findings of deaths, particularly of children younger than 1 year in British Columbia
We saw after Chernobyl the high rates of thyroid cancer and leukemia that occurred within a year or two The highest cause of death for children is cancer. If you have a 3 year old with cancer, obviously they didn't take 20 years to develop it.
40 - 60 MILLION Deaths Due To Global Open Air Nuclear Weapons Testing 1945 to 2003; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/40-60-million-deaths-due-to-global-open.html
Internal Radiation Danger Explained Via A Drop of Red Wine Story And Sniper In Football Stadium Story
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/internal-radiation-danger-explained-via.html
Children And Adults - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/low-dose-radiation-dangers-for-children.html
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
40 - 60 MILLION Deaths Due To Global Open Air Nuclear Weapons Testing 1945 to 2003; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/04/40-60-million-deaths-due-to-global-open.html
WHEN PEER REVIEW IS ABOUT STATISTICS AND MODELS, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE PUBLISHED, WILL BE PUBLISHED, BUT ONLY IF IT BENEFITS THE INDUSTRY INVOLVED
The nuclear industry loves to use theoretical 'models' and statistics, plus computer software that crunches the numbers, to come up with 'official' pro nuclear studies, which are then pushed out as mass media 'news' items. Those so called 'studies' which are based on no replicatable facts, are also published in pro nuclear industry friendly peer review publications.
Pro nuclear peer review studies are trotted out by the mass media as Holy Truth, from God himself and reported on the nightly mass media news repeatedly, while any opposing views or experts are ignored, made fun of dismissed, by those same media outlets.
Nuclear industry propaganda about low-level radiation is “absolute rubbish” says physician who taught at Harvard Med School — It’s all about internal emitters (VIDEO)
The problem is that these pro nuclear industry studies done by people working for the nuclear industry and receiving their funding from the industry are not based on any actual investigations, nor are they based on actual facts or measurements in most cases. These so called studies cannot be replicated unless one owns the software and one knows the assumptions which those studies are based on. The 'estimates' underneath everything, are based on nothing more than wild guesses, that are pulled out of thin air.
What most people don't realize is that the same very small group of pro nuclear friends, staffs, is employed by, and publishes the same 'stuff' inside of the various pro nuclear agencies and groups. When one group such as the IAEA points at another group, such as the ICRP, that is reporting their result and then confirming it, they are actually just pointing at themselves. On top of that, this same small group all agree, so they claim 'consensus', when there actually is NO consensus out there in the world of science, much less in the world of nuclear radiation research.
IAEA, ICRP, NCRP, And UNSCEAR Are All Staffed By The Same Pro Nuclear Industry Apologists; via @AGreenRoad
Bottom line, none of these studies are replicatable or confirmable outside of the small cadre of friends inside of the nuclear industry. As we have already learned, unless someone can replicate and confirm the facts inside of a study, it is not science. This being said, most or all of the reports and studies that are based on 'estimates', or 'models', are nothing more than pure baloney, or junk science.
Let's go into detail about how junk science is passed off as 'science', by exploring just one tiny little fact about radiation that anyone can understand, such as the difference between internal and external radiation, which the nuclear industry says does not exist, due to their theoretical, statistical modeling. Of course, they conveniently ignore the sniper in the football stadium, and many other scientific facts in order to come up with this conclusion.
Internal Radiation Danger Explained Via A Drop of Red Wine Story And Sniper In Football Stadium Story
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/08/internal-radiation-danger-explained-via.html
Children And Adults - Negative Effects Of Chronic, Cumulative Man Made Radiation Exposure
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/low-dose-radiation-dangers-for-children.html
For those who are brave and daring, it is time to venture into the bowels of deception and explore how big the problem is, via the following link...
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
GOVERNMENT MONEY AND PEER REVIEW
Ideally, government money is awarded only to the most worthy, purely scientific projects. But what happens with the money going into much of what makes up the medical, nuclear and military industry is based on political influence, and money/donations to political law makers. ALEC and corporate lobbyists have the power to move money to themselves via multiple levers of pressure, influence, behind the scenes moves, and more.
Since only 7 government agencies award most government money to monopolistic industries, everyone else is thrown under the bus, even if their proposals or ideas cost less, are more efficient, are much better for the environment, and cause no harm to 7 future generations for example. When dealing with monopolistic carbon, nuclear and medical industries, which have tentacles that extend into all spheres, including government peer review money granting committees, the peer review process itself is the problem, instead of the solution.
Environment, Holistic Living, Health, Self-Healing, Zero Point And Renewable Energy
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/green-energy-green-living.html
PRO INDUSTRY SHILLS DISMISS ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEM, THROUGH PERSONAL AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
What is always consistent in any debate with a pro nuclear industry 'expert' such as George Monbiot for example, or others like him, is that they quickly resort to dismissing tactics, name calling and personal attacks, such as this article by Monbiot does quite nicely, as an example.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
The pro nuclear apologists such as Monbiot do not debate the science. They do not take the points made by medical doctors such as Dr. Caldicott MD one by one and prove how their position is right and the medical doctors points are wrong. They rely on their fake 'peer reviewed' reports exclusively. Anyone who points out the fact that those 'reports' or 'studies' have flaws, biases or non scientific, non reproducible junk science conclusions is attacked and then dismissed, so there is no more need to actually debate anything.
There is actually a pro industry playbook, much like the football coaches use to win a game. The pro nuclear apologists use this 'playbook' to deny, dismiss or attack anyone who disagrees with their junk science. You can now read and learn from their 'playbook', via the links below.
30 Ways The Nuclear Industry Deceives Everyone; via @AGreenRoad
A Primer In The Art Of Deception; via @AGreenRoad
Sociopathic Nuclear Industry; Ex Fukushima Engineer Confesses; No Cold Shutdown, Warned of Tsunami 20 Yrs Ago; via @AGreenRoad
Catch 22 - Nuclear High Technology Plus Safety Assurances Offer Only False Promises, Empty Guarantees And Deceptions; via @AGreenRoad
Cognitive Dissonance And The Nuclear Industry; How Reality Refuses To Intrude; via @AGreenRoad
Truthiums And Factiums Being Made Illegal By Dr. Yamashita, Prime Minister Abe, Denial The Norm; via @AGreenRoad
SUMMARY
The carbon, nuclear and medical 'peers' prevent anyone else from horning in on their monopoly stranglehold on taxpayer money, peer review publications and law making ability. As a result of their monopolistic control, the peer review process is no longer scientific.
Rather it has become all about controlling the ever increasing amounts of money and a strangle hold on the levers of money, political power, and media control. The result of a monopolistic, secretive, non transparent and non replicatible peer review process inside these monopolistic industries has turned them into cults, but definitely not science.
Rather it has become all about controlling the ever increasing amounts of money and a strangle hold on the levers of money, political power, and media control. The result of a monopolistic, secretive, non transparent and non replicatible peer review process inside these monopolistic industries has turned them into cults, but definitely not science.
Donate To A Green Road Online Magazine Subscribe To A Green Road Magazine
Thanks for your generous support!
Overall, if peer review if done impartially, ethically, morally, compassionately and with no hidden motives involved, it increases the speed of movement towards sustainable, truthful and truly scientific advancement.
http://tiny.cc/5hqj7w
However, if there are built in hidden/secret motivations that keep on blocking the truth from being published, then the peer review process can set up very rigid negative and growing feedback loops that present a clear and present danger for not only democracy, but for all life on the planet.
End
The Problem With Scientific Peer Review And Nuclear Industry Review Panels In Particular
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-problem-with-scientific-peer-review.html
Art And Science Of Deception; Global Corporations And The 1%
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
Email Contact; agreenroad (at symbol) gmail.com
Links To Other Notable Organizations
Access all videos and articles by clicking on Pages - upper left hand corner of any article
Search site - click in SEARCH box - upper right hand corner of any article, type in search word or phrase
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/p/corporations-art-and-science-of.html
Website at www.agreenroadproject.org
Youtube Video Channel (1,000 + Creative Commons Videos) http://tinyurl.com/agryoutube
Table of Contents http://tinyurl.com/agrindex 2,000 + Videos And Articles
Table of Contents http://tinyurl.com/agrindex 2,000 + Videos And Articles
Thanks for your generous support
Email Contact; agreenroad (at symbol) gmail.com
Links To Other Notable Organizations
Access all videos and articles by clicking on Pages - upper left hand corner of any article
Search site - click in SEARCH box - upper right hand corner of any article, type in search word or phrase
.........................................................................................................................................
Donate To A Green Road Project; Help Dr Goodheart Teach About How To Create A Carbon and Nuclear Free Environment For Seven Future Generations Of Children, Animals, Plants And The Planet
إرسال تعليق