> On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:27 PM, "Mike Palij" <m...@nyu.edu> wrote:
> (1) One thing this pattern implies is that peer-review is broken in some
> significant way. It is not catching those articles that should not be
> published
>
It seems to me that you're expecting from peer review things that it was never
designed to catch -- outright fraud as opposed to poor conception, methodology,
execution, or interpretation. Indeed, given that the fraudsters know all about
the peer review process, it is likely that the fraud was designed specifically
to evade peer review's probable grasp.
-----
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M6C 1G4
Canada
chri...@yorku.ca
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=32809
or send a blank email to
leave-32809-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
