science paper makes reference to God, all hell breaks loose

[DetlefK]

http://gizmodo.com/science-journal-publishes-creationist-paper-science-co-1762677821

Open access science journal PLOS One is once again under scrutiny after a Creationist-minded research paper about the evolution of human hands got through peer review.

...

The paper, titled “Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living,” is an examination of the human hand’s remarkable flexibility, dexterity, and coordination. Nothing appears out of the ordinary until the end of the abstract when things dramatically veer off course:

" The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way."

...

Regardless, it got through, and now the open source journal is dealing with the predictable shitstorm. The paper’s comments section is full of indignation and requests that the paper be removed, and it has inspired such hashtags as #Creatorgate and #HandofGod.

...

Some commentators have come to the journal’s defense, saying that cultural and language differences are to blame. But given the explicitness of the statements in the paper, that’s hard to swallow.

...

Sadly, this is just one of several questionable papers to get published in PLOS One. But this journal can hardly be considered the only transgressor in this regard; Science once posted a paper on arsenic life and Nature had one on the memory of water.





------------------

I once read a paper on the memory of water. Somehow the diagrams were in such a bad pixel-resolution that they could have shown nothing and anything...



And the comment-section on this article contains comments with the misperception that something is true/existent until somebody proves otherwise.

[whatthehey]

1. Fools. Even undergrads know that's due to The Force.

And sodium/potassium channels are obviously the signature work of Cthulu while we are at it.

[Buzz Clik]

2. The peer review system is rapidly heading to the toilet.

This is a perfect example.

[xocet]

6. Is the peer review system inherently a bad system? If so, with what would you replace it? Or...

is the sort of outcome noted in this OP fairly infrequent?

[Buzz Clik]

7. The peer review system is excellent. The problem is its execution for too many journals.

There is great pressure on everyone involved to turn the papers around quickly -- associate editors round up reviews in just a day or two; reviewers pressured to read, comment, and return in less than a week.

PLOS One gets an F for their execution in this case, but the journal has a decent reputation. Many, many open source, online journals are pure trash. Sifting the wheat from the chaff will be a challenge...

[xocet]

9. In less than a week? Do you know if that is also true for journals like Phys Rev D?

It would seem impossible to carefully review a physics paper in less than a month if one had nothing else to do and knew the field well. I am not an expert though, so maybe my belief regarding this is incorrect. It would seem wise to separate entirely the pressure to publish from the act of reviewing.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Turnaround for Phys Rev D is pretty fast.

They don't publish the details of how long they give reviewers to do their job, but do say that each paper gets just one or two reviewers unless they cannot get a clear picture of the quality of the paper. One reviewer is really not acceptable.

I looked at only a couple papers, but the quickest turnaround from received to published was 3 months. That's very fast, but not the fastest I've heard.

So, based on what I've seen, I'm guessing that Phys Rev D is mid-level in its peer review.

[Orsino]

8. Any system will fail when defunded. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. Plos one seems to have pretty low standards when it comes to reviewing before publishing.

This is far from the first time I've heard them mentioned when it came to dubious work.

[bvf]

4. I've heard the same thing.

I recall being thunderstruck at something posted there not too long back, but damned if I can recall the exact topic. Hope it comes back to me.

Not too surprised by this.

[Hiraeth]

5. Everybody knows the FSM created in his own image. Tentacles, dude. Ramen!