From Newsgroup: sci.electronics.design

bud wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

john larkin wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it's broken.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
..
yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

Every now and then someone writes a totally nonsense paper, basically
a parody, and gets it reviewed and published. AI take the work out of
even that.

Some of the parodies are so good that they get deliberately reprinted.
One such that I can find on ADS in full is:

"On the imperturbability of Elevator Operators", Candlestickmaker, S.
(after the style of astrophysicist Chandrasekhar)

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1972QJRAS..13...63C/0000063.000.html

Several others also exist as spoofs/in jokes published in the style of
various famous theoreticians and journals and have been known to end up
in bound volumes since librarians tend to go by the front covers of the
periodicals and don't actually read the contents.

Another I can vaguely recall was "Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown"
and another one that Dirac thought so hilarious he paid to have it published >> in the exact layout of a specific learned journal.

Random Walk in Science has a few of them in.

One fairly well known fake was "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" by Alan Sokal submitted
to see if "a leading North American journal of cultural studies" would publish it. They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

"Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" (Einstein and Rosen)

Einstein Versus the Physical Review

Einstein stopped submitting work to the Physical Review after
receiving a negative critique from the journal in response to
a paper he had written with Rosen on gravitational waves later
in 1936. That much has long been known, at least to the editors
of Einstein's collected papers. But the story of Einstein's
subsequent interaction with the referee in that case is not well
known to physicists outside of the gravitational-wave community.
Last March, the journal's current editor-in-chief, Martin Blume,
and his colleagues uncovered the journal's logbook records from
the era, a find that has confirmed the suspicions about that
referee's identity. Moreover, the story raises the possibility
that Einstein's gravitational-wave paper with Rosen may have
been his only genuine encounter with anonymous peer review.
Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have
been well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which
proved to be valid. ...

Einstein submitted this research to the Physical Review under
the title "Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" with Rosen as coauthor.
Although the original version of the paper no longer exists,
Einstein's answer to the title question, to judge from his letter
to Born, was "No." It is remarkable that at this stage in his
career Einstein was prepared to believe that gravitational waves
did not exist, but he also managed to convince his new assistant,
Leopold Infeld, who replaced Rosen in 1936, that his argument was
valid.

(excerpt)

<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>

Danke,
--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2