Creationism slips into peer-reviewed journal

[Gnug215]

I just got linked to an article that was both a bit shocking to read, but also a pleasure, since they caught the bastards.

Ironically, Nephilimfree had linked to it in one of his posts, seemingly to make some kind point, but I think he shot himself in the foot, as usual.

Here is the article:

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/28/3/creationism-slips-into-peer-reviewed-journal


There are several things to notice here, I think.
Aside from the fact that it took a while to catch the idiots, one has to wonder why the journal itself didn't catch this right away.

I got the distinct suspicion, which the author seems to have gotten too, that the people at this journal may seem to have some sympathetic leanings towards creationism.

Of course, the alternative is gross negligence and incompetence, but as the saying goes: Never attribute to malice what could easily explained by idiocy.

However, this got me thinking about something rather disturbing.
It is clear that this is not the first time this will happen, and as the author of the article says, the next time they might not be so sloppy, and might not get caught so easily.

Furthermore, what about the prospect of having a whole journal taken over by people with creationist leanings? These people have previously shown to use underhanded tactics (like the whole business with the Wedge Document), so it's not inconceivable that they'd go for full-on infiltration of some institution.


The irony here being: Their tactics are evolving!

What do you guys think? And what can be done about this?

 

[Mapp]

The peer review process isn't perfect, and can be infiltrated with garbage if your reviewers are sloppy. Hell, sloppy books are published the same way. This happens in all professions that share this process. As a historian, I can think of the immediate example of the Denmark Vesey conspiracy. Several historians published books on Vesey based on fraudulent documents which they claimed were actual trial testimony. Neither the reviewers, nor the publishers, nor the editors caught this. It was only after Michael Johnson published a long, and absolutely scathing book review that ruined at least one historian's career that the issue was brought to life.

But that's the thing about peer review. It has numerous fail-safes which does not end after publication. You might be able to slip an article past a lazy or inattentive or even dishonest reviewer, but someone is going to catch it the moment it hits print. Just as this one was caught. And notice that the moment it was caught, it was withdrawn immediately from print. If it slips through, Creationists, who are intellectually dishonest to the core, will claim that because they have an article published, this is proof that ID is being accepted in the scientific community. That's just something we have to accept, knowing that they are dishonest and preparing for their attempts to subvert the process. Anyone who actually reads will know that this, like all their other assertions are bullshit, and anyone who is a gullible fool will buy it.

As for creationists infiltrating their own journal, fine. They do so at the cost of ruining that journal's credibility. Any journal that publishes unsubstantiated crap will not only destroy that journal but the reputations of those that reviewed it, which is probably why this journal in particular was so hesitant about releasing who initially checked the article. If this keeps up, the names will get out I assure you. The peer review process is wonderfully merciless to incompetents and liars.

 

[Gnug215]

As for creationists infiltrating their own journal, fine. They do so at the cost of ruining that journal's credibility. Any journal that publishes unsubstantiated crap will not only destroy that journal but the reputations of those that reviewed it, which is probably why this journal in particular was so hesitant about releasing who initially checked the article. If this keeps up, the names will get out I assure you. The peer review process is wonderfully merciless to incompetents and liars.

Yes, I realize that the journal's credibility would quickly be ruined, but as you said, this would give the creationists/ID'ers a chance to claim that their crap is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
That would muddle things up even more, and give them more excuses, and one of "our" better rebuttals would have been, well, if not spoiled, then at least weakened.

I've been worried about how this picture is already muddling up, especially with the increase of creationist literature.
For many reasons; it gives creationists something to link to in debates, which means we have to debunk a whole website of nonsense. And nonsense takes more time to debunk than to come up with, as you may know.
Also, it solidifies their (the creationists) beliefs, and it becomes harder to get them to understand the realities of the world.
In these cases, it's been helpful to point out the fact that the various creationist websites did not have any proper scientific work behind them, the peer-reviewed kind of work. That usually left creationists with the option to yell "Conspiracy!", and if that's the case, you knew you were dealing with a nutjob that could not be reasoned with, and you could move on.

But yes, I realize that the peer-reviewed process has faults, too. Thanks for pointing it out, though.

 

[ebbixx]

Yes, I realize that the journal's credibility would quickly be ruined, but as you said, this would give the creationists/ID'ers a chance to claim that their crap is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Here's my favorite quote from the article mentioned above.

The problem is that we described in very clear and definite way the disciplined nature that takes part inside our cells. We supported our meaning with define proteomics evidences that cry in front of scientists that the mitochondria is not evolved from other prokaryotes. They want to destroy us because we say the truth; only the truth.

One would tend to think by now that most "reputable" journals would be doing random samples of submitted articles on a routine basis, in order to prevent such obvious plagiarism by individuals unable to form meaningful English sentences without the aid of a cut-and-paste function. But I suppose one would be mistaken to make such an assumption. Everyone's so busy nowadays.

Of course, I have also failed to fully vet the article making these claims, which itself might be a work of fiction. My prejudices about human nature make me highly gullible in that way -- which is not to say that I suspect the report of being fiction, but simply that I have not found the time and energy needed to utterly confirm its facts.

 

[ebbixx]

I got the distinct suspicion, which the author seems to have gotten too, that the people at this journal may seem to have some sympathetic leanings towards creationism.

Where, specifically, did you get this impression?

I simply got the impression that the editors chose the simplest path by forcing the withdrawal based on clear-cut plagiarism of all but the incomprehensible nonsense slipped into the middle and the conclusion, material that had no real connection to science or even to the rest of the stolen article.

Seriously, where did you see signs of sympathy? I may have read too quickly.

 

[Gnug215]

One would tend to think by now that most "reputable" journals would be doing random samples of submitted articles on a routine basis, in order to prevent such obvious plagiarism by individuals unable to form meaningful English sentences without the aid of a cut-and-paste function. But I suppose one would be mistaken to make such an assumption. Everyone's so busy nowadays.

Lol, true, but I'm going to assume Han wrote the thing, since his English was fine.

PZ Myers was able to get a response (see http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/one_author_responds.php) from Jin Han, who explained that:
I found the serious mistakes in the paper during the process of edits, which I confused between the early drafts and the latest versions: I did not check the use of the sentences in the references (more than 200 references). Finally I made serious error to make the final version. In order to rectify an error, I requested to retract the paper to the editorial office of Proteomics.

---o---

I got the distinct suspicion, which the author seems to have gotten too, that the people at this journal may seem to have some sympathetic leanings towards creationism.

Where, specifically, did you get this impression?

I simply got the impression that the editors chose the simplest path by forcing the withdrawal based on clear-cut plagiarism of all but the incomprehensible nonsense slipped into the middle and the conclusion, material that had no real connection to science or even to the rest of the stolen article.

Seriously, where did you see signs of sympathy? I may have read too quickly.

Here:

I contacted the editor-in-chief of Proteomics, Michael Dunn, to find out more about what happened. Many scientists have speculated publicly that the peer review process went seriously wrong for this paper. Dunn assured me that the paper was reviewed by two "well-respected and highly competent reviewers" both of whom recommended minor revisions. For some reason, though, "neither picked up the references to creationism, nor did they recognize that sections of the text were plagiarized," according to Dunn. It is not too surprising that the reviewers missed the plagiarism, but the title and abstract should have raised huge red flags warning the reviewers that this article had questionable science. I have to conclude that the reviewers were very sloppy, incompetent, or both; at the very least they were inattentive in this case, despite the editor's claims to the contrary. And Dunn himself is not without responsibility in this case: he must have seen the reference to "the soul" in the article's title, and he should have been more pro-active. His failure to make any public statement about the creationist claims in the article also raises questions about the leadership at the journal.

And a bit here, too:

This entire episode points out a weakness in scientific peer review that creationists and other pseudoscience proponents may try to exploit again. We only caught this attempted fraud thanks to the diligence of bloggers: the journal itself had already missed it. What is perhaps more troubling is the fact that the journal relied solely on the plagiarism to force the retraction: if not for that, the article might have been published despite its unsubstantiated creationist claims. I asked Dunn specifically about this issue, but he declined to comment. The Warda and Han paper demonstrates a new strategy that proponents of creationism might attempt again, and perhaps next time they will not be so foolish as to plagiarize their text. We can only hope that the publicity surrounding this incident will alert both reviewers and editors of scientific journals to be on the lookout for "stealth" creationist claims in the future.

Obviously, it's a stretch, but one is left wondering. Obviously, it was the author that gave me the suspicion, as he seems to hint at it himself in his last line in the former paragraph.
However, as it is with confirmation bias, this fit quite well with my budding conspiracy theory about creationist infiltration of scientific journals, so I may have been more susceptible to it than I should have.

 

[buzzausa]

This is a very unfortunate event and definitely as PZ Myers put it "a baffling failure of peer review", but it is not surprising.

It is not surprising that such gross violations went unnoticed in the review process, in spite of the fact that two"well-respected and highly competent reviewers" reviewed the manuscript.

Reviewers are scientists themselves, who have labs and graduate students. At times, the boss is busy so the grads do the reviews. Now if you know anything about grad students (I am one) you're under pressure enough as it is, so anything that gets on your desk that is not directly related to your work takes time away from your work and you want it gone as soon as possible....hence...a less than thorough review.

I AM NOT saying that this is the norm and every grad students is like that....I am just saying that this can happen.

The good news is, and what happened here is a perfect example of that, sooner or later somebody is going to call the bullshit, and eventually manuscripts with no merit are rejected.

This however is definitely a wake up call for all of us in the scientific community. Bullshitters are out there and they are certainly not idle.

 

[Gnug215]

This is a very unfortunate event and definitely as PZ Myers put it "a baffling failure of peer review", but it is not surprising.

It is not surprising that such gross violations went unnoticed in the review process, in spite of the fact that two"well-respected and highly competent reviewers" reviewed the manuscript.

Reviewers are scientists themselves, who have labs and graduate students. At times, the boss is busy so the grads do the reviews. Now if you know anything about grad students (I am one) you're under pressure enough as it is, so anything that gets on your desk that is not directly related to your work takes time away from your work and you want it gone as soon as possible....hence...a less than thorough review.

I AM NOT saying that this is the norm and every grad students is like that....I am just saying that this can happen.

The good news is, and what happened here is a perfect example of that, sooner or later somebody is going to call the bullshit, and eventually manuscripts with no merit are rejected.

This however is definitely a wake up call for all of us in the scientific community. Bullshitters are out there and they are certainly not idle.

Thanks for this explanation. I can certainly sympathize with the situation, but the slip up is not what concerns me the most, but rather the fact that creationists are actively trying to slip in - and as the author of the article points out, the next time they might not be so sloppy.

Like I said, they're evolving.

It's like the process that we've seen over the years, going from creationism to ID, to "teach the controversy", to whatever convoluted attempt they're making nowadays.
One thing that may be positive about that development, though, is that this kind of development also muddles things up for themselves, and divides them. It also seems to be getting too complex and confusing for the public at large to keep track, and they might be running out of simple, memorable catch-phrases to apply to this.

 

[ebbixx]

Reviewers are scientists themselves, who have labs and graduate students. At times, the boss is busy so the grads do the reviews. Now if you know anything about grad students (I am one) you're under pressure enough as it is, so anything that gets on your desk that is not directly related to your work takes time away from your work and you want it gone as soon as possible....hence...a less than thorough review.

I have to agree with you on this. Absent an actively smoking gun, corner-cutting and overwork are far more likely than some degree of collusion (collusion that could only result in grievous harm to the careers of all involved in an active conspiracy, once it was inevitably discovered).

It just doesn't scan. I can't and won't rule it out, but I do need much better evidence to go on than the cautious, backside-covering reticence of a journal editor who has clearly already been deeply embarrassed by the incident.

But the fact that the construction of the article presents a very clear-cut instance of plagiarized, amalgamated B.S. does leave me to reiterate: Why is there no standard, automated process of checking for plagiarism on all papers submitted? Are we afraid of what we'd find, or simply concerned that such searches might lead to some kind of witch hunt within academia, based on, say, inadvertently repeating phrases or wording that felt familiar, without being clearly ripped off?

I seem to recall there have been instances in the past where accusations have been made that were not nearly so clear-cut as what's described concerning this incident.

 

[Mapp]

Because it is extremely hard to write such an automated system. One of the better attempts I've seen so far is Turn It In, which compares papers against a gigantic database of already written work and then flags what it considers "plagiarism." The problem with Turn It In, and with so many other programs of its type is that it can't check to see if the source it's checking is properly cited or not, and it often gets tripped up if someone's language is similar to another. Thus a properly cited quote will get red flagged, just as if it were copied. All these programs can generally do is give the reader places to look at that might be suspicious and possible sources of the material, so they still need to be thoroughly checked by humans. Thus, while it works pretty well for checking an undergraduate's term paper, I would never attempt to use it on a actual article.

It's possible at some point that we'll have a program that is actually capable of intelligently recognizing real plagiarism from, a sourced quote or paraphrase, but then you have the next step: most researchers botch a citation now and then, and I think if you did serious in-depth fact checking on every paper that came your way you'd find at least one that's off in some way every time. And even then, how would it judge if someone is, for instance, accurately paraphrasing a given document, and not spinning it? These could be honest mistakes or they could be intentional fudging of the data. Thus, there's a certain insistence in academia, and not without good reason, that the process, even with its flaws remain in human hands.

As I said above, it's been proven to work. It's right, far, far more often than it's wrong. And, after all, just because something actually gets published does not mean it isn't set in stone. It just means that its open for criticism and study from the larger scientific community.

The only thing you can rely on, is that no matter how the process turns out, creationists will lie and distort the facts. It's the only constant. If IDiots manage to sneak an article past a journal it won't impress anyone but the buffoons who are already taken in by their garbage. It's a bit ironic in a way. The IDiots are so utterly disdainful of the scientific process, which they consider so biased against their fairy tales, and yet they actively work to subvert it.

 

[ebbixx]

Because it is extremely hard to write such an automated system. One of the better attempts I've seen so far is Turn It In, which compares papers against a gigantic database of already written work and then flags what it considers "plagiarism." The problem with Turn It In, and with so many other programs of its type is that it can't check to see if the source it's checking is properly cited or not, and it often gets tripped up if someone's language is similar to another. Thus a properly cited quote will get red flagged, just as if it were copied. All these programs can generally do is give the reader places to look at that might be suspicious and possible sources of the material, so they still need to be thoroughly checked by humans. Thus, while it works pretty well for checking an undergraduate's term paper, I would never attempt to use it on a actual article.

Why not? I'm not suggesting one should rely on it exclusively. My impression is that the plagiarism was caught, once suspected, by use of just such a program, followed by further human review to confirm the matches truly matched. I'm not saying or even suggesting the vetting process be entirely automated, just that it be used as one preliminary step, and with adequate caution against false positives -- meaning a human review is still essential after suspicion arises due to an automated (or semi-automated) scan.

For all I know, in this instance it might have been spotted by a handful of random googlings, which is more like what I was thinking of, and which is also not conclusive or foolproof (and couldn't be that hard to script.. I wouldn't go so far as to call it programming). Such a routine seems fairly likely to spot at least the most blatant forms of plagiarism, at least when any of the sources are publicly indexed in full text.

Perhaps this is being overengineered? Catching something in a search is, in itself, not actionable evidence, I would hope, even for undergrads. Then again, maybe I have cause for concern if something like this is being used uncritically against undergrads?

 

[Mapp]

Well, as I said, because there simply isn't an artificial intelligence sophisticated enough. These systems work great for moronic undergrads, who simply copy whole sections of text from an online essay site, but when you have someone who is maliciously trying to falsify or hide data (especially with someone who has credentials and really understands the process) it is difficult even for human readers to detect. The Denmark Vesey case only came out because Michael Johnson was doing research with the very same primary sources Egerton was using in his book, and had analyzed the documents enough to know they were frauds. Now Egerton claimed that he and others were simply fooled, or did sloppy work, rather than intentionally trying to fudge the data, and I'm inclined to believe him, at least in that he was sloppy and not malicious, but that's the kind of sophisticated contextual analysis that computers are unable to pull off. Egerton has since presented new evidence which he claims vindicates his case, but I don't buy it.

In this particular case, the IDiots that wrote the article were essentially going the undergrad route, and the readers were sloppy. So it should have been caught, even without the help of software, as PZ pointed out, by anyone that actually carefully read the document. So, essentially that kind of program would be over-engineering.

And I'm not saying that at some point there couldn't be a software program that could check these kinds of things. What I'm saying is that there is simply nothing out there that is capable of checking a 50 page monograph at the level of sophistication to make it useful in the peer review process. And I can guarantee, that academics would be much more interested in a program that could grade all those damn final exams at the end of the year so we could start our vacations sooner.

 

[Otokogoroshi]

The willingness for these people to lie, cheat and break their OWN religious laws to promote their flawed opinions (as that is all their creation ideas are) is disgusting.

 

[Gnug215]

The willingness for these people to lie, cheat and break their OWN religious laws to promote their flawed opinions (as that is all their creation ideas are) is disgusting.

It's not only disgusting, but also dangerous, if you ask me.
They're basically undermining science and the public's trust in science.

They're certainly engendering huge mistrust in religious and right-wing circles. I mean, apparently, universities are all just left-wing, godless brainwashing institutions. If they have their way long enough, we might even see scientists getting burned at the stake.

*groan*

 

[buzzausa]

Well, as I said, because there simply isn't an artificial intelligence sophisticated enough. These systems work great for moronic undergrads, who simply copy whole sections of text from an online essay site, but when you have someone who is maliciously trying to falsify or hide data (especially with someone who has credentials and really understands the process) it is difficult even for human readers to detect. The Denmark Vesey case only came out because Michael Johnson was doing research with the very same primary sources Egerton was using in his book, and had analyzed the documents enough to know they were frauds. Now Egerton claimed that he and others were simply fooled, or did sloppy work, rather than intentionally trying to fudge the data, and I'm inclined to believe him, at least in that he was sloppy and not malicious, but that's the kind of sophisticated contextual analysis that computers are unable to pull off. Egerton has since presented new evidence which he claims vindicates his case, but I don't buy it.

In this particular case, the IDiots that wrote the article were essentially going the undergrad route, and the readers were sloppy. So it should have been caught, even without the help of software, as PZ pointed out, by anyone that actually carefully read the document. So, essentially that kind of program would be over-engineering.

And I'm not saying that at some point there couldn't be a software program that could check these kinds of things. What I'm saying is that there is simply nothing out there that is capable of checking a 50 page monograph at the level of sophistication to make it useful in the peer review process. And I can guarantee, that academics would be much more interested in a program that could grade all those damn final exams at the end of the year so we could start our vacations sooner.

I couldn't agree with you more Mapp (and your previous post as well)
Peer review is by no means perfect and to tell you the truth also not completely immune from unethical behavior but it is the most adequate means to hold science and scientist to the high standards that is expected of them.
Some less than deserving manuscript may find its way to the pages of reputable journals, by fooling a few inattentive reviewers, but the scientific community at large will not be fooled and eventually somebody will call the bullshit.
That's where science differs from religious dogma. Any scientific work is out there to be challenged and put to the test...constantly. If it holds, it is validated, if it doesn't it is replaced by something better. Science thrives on this process. Religious dogma is stagnant, immutable and any challenge to it is considered blasphemy. That's why we have people out there trying to "interpret" an ancient collection of fairy tales so that it applies to the real world. :roll:


Also if you come across one of those final exams auto-grader.....let me know