First Post

Yue Liu

China Shenyang Normal University

105 Papers
13 Following
4 Followers

Hub

Commented on Ethical problems in academic peer review
The prevailing perspective assumes that most individuals act with good intentions. However, in specific domains like the peer review of disruptive innovations, unethical behavior can sometimes outweigh ethical conduct. Interestingly, it's often the minority of ethical individuals who play a pivotal role in facilitating the success of disruptive innovations, while mainstream media tends to overlook or even indulgence instances of academic misconduct within peer review. Scholarly journals are categorized into tiers, resulting in the paradoxical situation where subpar articles in prestigious journals are sometimes celebrated as groundbreaking. Widespread promotional strategies and advertisements often overshadow genuinely innovative work. Science has evolved into a profession, taking on the appearance of a scholarly game, encouraged by academic authorities. Eliminating journal rankings and promotional mechanisms could potentially restore the authentic scientific spirit of earlier eras, allowing valuable contributions to receive the recognition they deserve. Broad consensus seldom fosters innovation, and following popular trends rarely nurtures creativity. Authentic innovation thrives in specialized domains, where even highly cited papers may lack genuine novelty.

Webinar

Commented on Reviewer Roulette: Understanding reviewer behaviors and motivations to improve our responses
抛弃“同行评议”，获得“专家共识” https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-1377383.html http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365753.shtml http://finance.sina.com.cn/hy/20131119/105717365756.shtml 张维迎：创新就是大部分人都不认同的想法 https://www.wenmi.com/article/puj98i03nn9k.html 多数人认同的不叫创新 https://www.yicai.com/news/5345088.html 许小年：创新没有风口，凡是追逐风口的行为都不是创新 https://www.sass.org.cn/_s3/_t31/2008/1229/c1201a26145/page.psp 但“创新”意味着与众不同，公认的东西往往是常识 https://news.ifeng.com/c/7fcJvZmKtue 学术评价与学术程序的质量都取决于学术共同体的质量 颠覆传统理论的创新会在高引论文中产生吗？有那么高共识的论文能是颠覆性创新吗？ https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/AyrjTS71DImtO3HQy-irfw 受不了了！在论文修改了5次之后，作者终于“怒怼”了审稿人！没想到这篇回复竟发了SCI https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/1438671826557224739.html https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1669193669905192103&wfr=spider&for=pc https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1730445894371096545&wfr=spider&for=pc https://www.163.com/dy/article/EESVUABL053780N4.html https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1653433345458611991&wfr=spider&for=pc http://www.360doc.com/content/19/0320/16/60903167_822931855.shtml https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1702780539389791265&wfr=spider&for=pc 为何近几十年来，物理学已经没有重大突破或者发现了 原因是现代科学只重视依靠仪器的实验研究，不像牛顿时代重视用数学揭示实验现象背后的本质的理论研究。另外，同行评审制度打压，使突破传统理论的创新发表不出了。 “Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations.” --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 引申：历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。

Webinar

Commented on Reviewer Roulette: Understanding reviewer behaviors and motivations to improve our responses
(c) 目前，无论是国际还是国内，官科更重视用高精尖的仪器做表面文章，热衷于读顶刊文献、做实验、写实验报告。 鲜有官科能重视自身理论提高的、愿意花功夫读教科书。 一些人靠圈子发了几篇Science和Nature等顶刊垃圾文章、拿了国家自然科学基金，就真的认为自己水平很高了。 一个科学家是不是真的有水平，不在于在Science和Nature等顶刊发了多少垃圾文章、也不在于拿了多少项国家自然科学基金，而在于他是不是真的有理论水平。 一个学者是否有成就，不在于他在世时在Science和Nature等顶刊发了多少垃圾文章、也不在于祸祸多少国家自然科学基金，而在于他离世后为这个世界留下了什么。 一些人认为实践是检验理论的唯一标准，因此认为只有实验才是科学研究。 他们认为理论没有屁毛之用，随着科学的进步，理论最后都将被实验推翻。 因此出现了实验教学高于理论教学的错误论断。 实际这是本末倒置，实验的目的是建立理论认知。牛顿时代建立的经典物理学不会被推翻。 量子力学并没有推翻经典物理学，量子力学只是丰富了物理学。 从小的大高强度的理论学习是人类最大的教育成就。世界上没有一所学校是以实验教学为主的。 (d) 很多人以为现代科学突飞猛进，牛顿时代建立的理论已经落伍了。 因此相当多数的官科看不起教科书。他们认为教科书是低层次的。 实际上能进入教课书的都是人类最伟大的成就。 牛顿时代建立的理论都进入了教科书，现代没有建立一门有资格进入教科书的理论。 现代科学仅仅是应用牛顿时代建立理论的技术方面的革命。 现代仪器设计没有一个超出牛顿时代建立的理论，都是用牛顿时代建立的理论做出了的。 现代科学没有建立一门堪比牛顿时代的理论。 现代科学没有产生一门堪比牛顿时代的理论，原因被认为是期刊和项目的审查制度扼杀了新思想。 但是牛顿时代科学家的一个主要特点是用数学揭示实验现象背后的本质。 现代官科对数学有极大的反感。 抛弃数学逻辑思维的结果是：现代科学几乎没有取得像样的科学进步，仅仅是技术有所进步而已。

Webinar

Commented on Reviewer Roulette: Understanding reviewer behaviors and motivations to improve our responses
抛弃“同行评议”，获得“专家共识” https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-279293-1377383.html 学术圈某种意义上像是个派系林立的“江湖”，学术权威如同“教主”一样，普通学者没有力量反抗其观点。 随着发表的错误论文越来越多，跟风研究的越来越多，大家都成了既得利益者，就默许了这些错误的观点继续流传下去。 ———— 科技日报，2018-10-18 第01版：今日要闻，骗了全世界十余年 干细胞“学术大牛”走下神坛 https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619477235832974&wfr=spider&for=pc https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1614619476870888302 https://www.rmzxb.com.cn/c/2018-10-18/2193148.shtml ======================== [Ref. 1] “Can so many scientists have been wrong over the eighty years since 1925? Unhappily, yes. The mainstream in science, as any scientist will tell you, is often wrong. Otherwise, come to think of it, science would be complete. Few scientists would make that claim, or would want to. Statistical significance is surely not the only error in modern science, although it has been, as we will show, an exceptionally damaging one. Scientists are often tardy in fixing basic flaws in their sciences despite the presence of better alternatives. Think of the half century it took American geologists to recognize the truth of drifting continents, a theory proposed in 1915 by—of all eminently ignorable people—a German meteorologist. Scientists, after all, are human. What Nietzsche called the ‘twilight of the idols,’ the fear of losing a powerful symbol or god or technology, haunts us all” Ziliak, S. T. and McCloskey, D. N. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: how the standard error costs us jobs, justice, and lives. University of Michigan Press [Ref. 2] Nobel laureate Tasuku Honjo: “First-class work often overturns the established conclusion, so it is unpopular. The reviewers cannot fully understand your work and will give you many negative comments, …. Articles catering to the trend of the times are easy to be accepted, otherwise, it will take a long time to get recognized” (2000) and “If your research can’t overturn the established conclusion, science can’t progress. Of course, your research will be not recorded in history. The academic world is conservative. If you don’t write your paper according to the existing conclusion, it will be very difficult for your paper to be accepted, and you will suffer a lot, but the research that can survive in history is exactly this kind of research.“ (2013) https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=5112614&version=1.1 [Ref. 3] “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” M. Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Paper, William & Norgate, London, 1950, pp. 33 -34. [Ref. 4] “some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long … experts were just too timid to take a stand.” Harvard calls for retraction of dozens of studies by noted cardiologist, New York Times, http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/16/news/harvard-calls-for-retraction-of-dozens-of-studies-by-noted-cardiologist/. 16 Oct 2018 [Ref. 5] S. Vazire, A toast to the error detectors, Nature 577(7788) (2020) 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03909-2 [Ref. 6] “Poster 1: Charles Townes and the Laser … [After] we had been at it for two years, Rabi and Kusch, the former and current chairman of the department — both of them Nobel laureates for work with atomic and molecular beams, and both with a lot of weight behind their opinions — came into my office and sat down. They were worried. Their research depended on support from the same source as did mine. ‘Look,’ they said, ‘you should stop the work you are doing. It isn‘t going to work. You know it‘s not going to work. We know it‘s not going to work. You‘re wasting money. Just stop!’ But Townes had come to Columbia on tenure, so he knew he couldn’t be fired for incompetence or ordered around. Nevertheless, the awesome weight of Rabi‘s reputation in particular — a one-time senior member of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology‘s legendary Radiation Laboratory set up by Vannevar Bush to develop wartime radar — must have been daunting. Such top brass cannot be defied lightly, and showing extraordinary courage, this junior faculty member stood his ground, and respectfully told his exalted colleagues that he would continue. Two months later (in April 1954), his experiment worked, and the maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) was born. Three years after that Arthur Schawlow, Townes‘ postdoc at Columbia, had moved to the Bell Laboratories, and their collaboration led to the optical version of the maser — the laser. Townes was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 for these discoveries [shared with Aleksander Prokhorov and Nikolai Basov (USSR), who developed the maser and laser independently]. Schawlow was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1981 for his work on laser spectroscopy.” Donald W. Braben – Scientific Freedom – The Elixir of Civilization, Wiley Interscience (2008) [Ref. 7] “So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798 Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals [Ref. 8] “Now pretty much every journal uses outside experts to vet papers, and papers that don‘t please reviewers get rejected … Weak-link thinking makes scientific censorship seem reasonable, but all censorship does is make old ideas harder to defeat. Remember that it used to be obviously true that the Earth is the center of the universe, and if scientific journals had existed in Copernicus‘ time, geocentrist reviewers would have rejected his paper and patted themselves on the back for preventing the spread of misinformation. Eugenics used to be hot stuff in science—do you think a bunch of racists would give the green light to a paper showing that Black people are just as smart as white people? Or any paper at all by a Black author? (And if you think that‘s ancient history: this dynamic is still playing out today.) We still don‘t understand basic truths about the universe, and many ideas we believe today will one day be debunked. Peer review, like every form of censorship, merely slows down truth.” https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review The rise and fall of peer review [Ref. 9] “Professor Braben argues that the introduction in the 1970s of the (peer) review of research proposals has led to a dearth of big scientific discoveries. The most radical ideas, he says, are unlikely to get funded because it is difficult to impress peers before they have been proven. … It (peer review) works well enough in the mainstream but it is at the margins where major discoveries are made, where people don’t believe in the current wisdom and want to head off into dramatically different directions. To submit those ideas to peer review is disastrous” https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/kill-peer-review-save-civilisation/401457.article?storyCode=401457&site=cn Kill peer review, save civilization [Ref. 10] “On the off chance you do figure out a way to improve peer review without also making it worse, you can try convincing the nearly 30,000 scientific journals in existence to apply your magical method to the ~4.7 million articles they publish every year. Good luck!” https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review The rise and fall of peer review [Ref. 11] Beyond these considerations, the importance of many of the more recent developments cannot be evaluated objectively at this time. The history of mathematics teaches us that many subjects which aroused tremendous enthusiasm and engaged the attention of the best mathematicians ultimately faded into oblivion ... Indeed one of the interesting questions that the history answers is what survives in mathematics. History makes its own and sounder evaluations. --Morris Kline, Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-506136-5 作者表达的意思是：历史是最公正的。历史反复证明，那些在当世喧嚣尘上的东西往往是主流学者刻意炒作的糟粕，而那些被当世打压的经常是真金白银。 ========================= https://www.growkudos.com/profile/yue_liu_2 （a） 985高校物理专业资深教授的理论证明文章，用物理证明公认理论： [1] Strict proof and applicable range of the quarter-wavelength model for microwave absorbers S. Zhang, T. Wang, M. Gao, P. Wang, H. Pang, L. Qiao, et al. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2020 Vol. 53 Issue 26 Pages 265004 DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/ab79da https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/ab79da [2] Approximate solution of impedance matching for nonmagnetic homogeneous absorbing materials X. Wang, Z. Du, M. Hou, Z. Ding, C. Jiang, X. Huang, et al. The European Physical Journal Special Topics 2022 Vol. 231 Issue 24 Pages 4213-4220 DOI: 10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00570-1 https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-022-00570-1 对公认理论的理论证明，正确的安全系数似乎比较大。又出自名校，被认为是官科。 指出理论证明是错的，首先要看懂人家的理论证明，指出理论证明是错的是更深层次的。 很多官科，根本看不懂上面的理论证明。否则轮不到让“民科”发现其理论证明不对。 (b) 三流学校物理外行（化学）教师的文章，详细分析上面两篇官科物理理论证明的错误。被认为是“民科的工作”。 [3] Ying Liu, Michael G. B. Drew, Yue Liu, A physics investigation on impedance matching theory in microwave absorption film—Part 2: Problem Analyses, Journal of Applied Physics, 2023, 134, 045304 https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0153612 [4] A re-evaluation of the Mechanism of Microwave Absorption in Film – Part 3: Inverse Relationship, Materials Chemistry and Physics, 2022, 290, 126521 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2022.126521 批判已经被公认的理论，难度有点大，需要有理论认知基础。 官科不服的话，需要拿出科学论证批驳民科的文章，而不是不拿正眼看民科，所谓“官科如果拿正眼看一下民科，官科就输了”。 (c) 目前，无论是国际还是国内，官科更重视用高精尖的仪器做表面文章，热衷于读顶刊文献、做实验、写实验报告。 鲜有官科能重视自身理论提高的、愿意花功夫读教科书。 一些人靠圈子发了几篇Science和Nature等顶刊垃圾文章、拿了国家自然科学基金，就真的认为自己水平很高了。 一个科学家是不是真的有水平，不在于在Science和Nature等顶刊发了多少垃圾文章、也不在于
Webinars Posters Questions Hubs Funding Journals Articles Connect Collections Reviewers About Us FAQs Mobile App Privacy Policy Terms of Use
© Peeref 2019-2024. All rights reserved.