Honestly probably a good thing -- missing such a sloppy error and then refusing to change your conclusions when it's revealed the actual values are an order of magnitude different is just...
Honestly probably a good thing -- missing such a sloppy error and then refusing to change your conclusions when it's revealed the actual values are an order of magnitude different is just ridiculously, egregiously bad.
I find it hard to judge off of this article. The responsibility you can put on the journal for the quality of the research that they publish is limited. Ultimately, they have to rely on external...
I find it hard to judge off of this article. The responsibility you can put on the journal for the quality of the research that they publish is limited. Ultimately, they have to rely on external reviewers to properly vet the science.
What I gather from the article is that their peer review and editorial process is flawed and that is part of the problem here. But even in very good journals, sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.
Unfortunately, the article is quite vague on what the problems are exactly and I am not familiar with the study or journal in question to judge.
Basically what I am trying to say is that this could happen could happen in any journal, but the issue appears to be systematic. If it were an isolated incident they wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) get this kind of backlash.
Yeah, as much as these researchers are responsible for their math errors, it seems to be a larger issue with the journal I don't know what is "normal" but 8 retractions in a month seems like a lot...
Yeah, as much as these researchers are responsible for their math errors, it seems to be a larger issue with the journal
According to Retraction Watch, Chemosphere has retracted eight articles this month and published 60 expressions of concern since April.
I don't know what is "normal" but 8 retractions in a month seems like a lot to me
Apologies, I know I'm agreeing at you in a way that sounds more like disagreeing. I think I mitigated it but wanted to mention it
Indeed! There seem to be larger issues and 8 retractions seems like a lot to me too. I'm curious though why it happens. My experience is that the editor only really checks if the paper is a good...
Indeed! There seem to be larger issues and 8 retractions seems like a lot to me too.
I'm curious though why it happens.
My experience is that the editor only really checks if the paper is a good fit for the journal and then finds reviewers. So then are the editors not finding reviewers that are actually qualified? Or do they accept papers anyway even if the refs recommend rejection? Or does the journal just attract papers of a certain quality? So many questions...
Retractions every now and then happen and normally I would not blame the journal (I have enough other reasons to dislike academic publishers haha) even if the authors made such an obvious mistake. The process is not perfect even if done right. We also had once that one of our papers got accepted and we were left with the impression that none of the reviewers spent much time reading the manuscript. And that was a very prestigious journal in my field.
But the fact that it seems so common in their case is quite concerning and that's what people ought to be focussing on. That one specific retraction makes for a good headline but I'm a bit worried it makes people miss the point because they are not familiar with how journals work.
For what it's worth I think the people that need to know will understand, it's not something most people will think more about. They may think it's over this paper but I don't think that's...
For what it's worth I think the people that need to know will understand, it's not something most people will think more about. They may think it's over this paper but I don't think that's necessarily a problem because I don't think it leads to bad outcomes unless they're the ones actively reading journals.(And if they were, they'd probably have the missing context.)
My guess? Neither. Overworked/underappreciated reviewers. Reviewing is thankless work, and usually people who's primary job is doing research are moonlighting/volunteering as reviewers. They...
So then are the editors not finding reviewers that are actually qualified? Or do they accept papers anyway even if the refs recommend rejection? Or does the journal just attract papers of a certain quality?
My guess? Neither. Overworked/underappreciated reviewers. Reviewing is thankless work, and usually people who's primary job is doing research are moonlighting/volunteering as reviewers. They probably don't have the time to check tiny details like that. There's also often a baseline assumption of competence: you're more checking what they said, rather than what they did.
Different fields might have different standards though. I'm not a chemist.
Absolutely true. From what I gather, most reviewers are just volunteers who do it to help the field. But that's everywhere. And the thing is that this journal seem to have some problems there that...
Absolutely true. From what I gather, most reviewers are just volunteers who do it to help the field.
But that's everywhere. And the thing is that this journal seem to have some problems there that other journals do not. So there must be something that the journal does worse.
Right, I think that the reviewers here likely did their job alright. Unless they saw the correction, saw the statement 'this doesn't change our conclusions' and said 'yep that's fine'. But that's...
Right, I think that the reviewers here likely did their job alright. Unless they saw the correction, saw the statement 'this doesn't change our conclusions' and said 'yep that's fine'. But that's unlikely if you ask me, and even then that's something the editors would've seen. And that's where I'd look for blame: editors who saw this whole hubbub and figured that the correction could be published. That correction isn't good enough as is, but it also highlights massive flaws with the published article. Retract while the authors revise their conclusions to fit the results I guess?
The specific issue in this case was that they quite literally multiplied two numbers wrong - they added a 0 to the result, making it an order of magnitude higher than it should have been. This...
The specific issue in this case was that they quite literally multiplied two numbers wrong - they added a 0 to the result, making it an order of magnitude higher than it should have been. This went from “black plastics can leech almost the safe limit of bromine into your food” into “black plastics can leech about 10% the safe limit of bromine”.
If that still sounds bad, I’d note that you’d get about the same amount of bromine from the daily recommended amount of fresh fruit. A risk, nonetheless, but maybe one that looks different in different context.
There’s other issues with the study about the likelihood of these recycled plastics actually being in modern utensils. But the shockingly bad arithmetic is the main one. Like, you can just look the order of magnitude of the numbers and know it’s wrong. It’d be as if I said 24 * 40 = 24,000.
This is true to an extent, and I'm sure the decision was made due to a more systematic pattern of issues with this journal. But the multiplication error in this paper was so obviously bad that a...
What I gather from the article is that their peer review and editorial process is flawed and that is part of the problem here. But even in very good journals, sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.
This is true to an extent, and I'm sure the decision was made due to a more systematic pattern of issues with this journal. But the multiplication error in this paper was so obviously bad that a ten-year-old could spot it, so it getting missed is a pretty dark mark for their peer review process. It's the kind of egregious error that makes any other pattern of mistakes at this journal much less surprising.
The language used in the correction, which claims this difference doesn't affect the conclusion of the paper, is where it moves from sloppy to "could only be worse if it was full-on fraud" imo, to an extent that I would mistrust any other paper written by this author. While this negatively affects my opinion of the author much more than it does my opinion of the journal, I'm pretty sure the journal had at least some authority to push back on that and demand a retraction or different wording in the correction instead? So it reinforces the sense that this journal's editors really do not care about the quality of what they publish.
Due to the initial, incorrect, results of the study, we actually dumped a vast majority of our black plastic, including our coffee pot, which was replaced with a metal percolator. Annoying that...
Due to the initial, incorrect, results of the study, we actually dumped a vast majority of our black plastic, including our coffee pot, which was replaced with a metal percolator.
Annoying that I've had to send the correction to people I sent the initial publishing to, but I also don't regret replacing the vast majority of my plastic cooking stuff with metal, as well as the percolator, which makes delicious coffee and manages to somehow keep it hot without burning it like my old pot. I'm also super happy with my new metal spatulas, so cheers to buying better cooking tools, in spite of dubious science.
At the very least you're probably more comfortable using your cooking utensils now and can have better peace of mind; that's worth something! I believe there's probably some kind of poison in...
At the very least you're probably more comfortable using your cooking utensils now and can have better peace of mind; that's worth something!
I believe there's probably some kind of poison in pretty much everything we consume these days, especially if it's cheap or plastic; so trying to avoid it all is very difficult.
That's definitely true. Trying to just generally get away from plastic in life is challenging, but at least that's one area of life that I don't have to think about it so much.
That's definitely true.
Trying to just generally get away from plastic in life is challenging, but at least that's one area of life that I don't have to think about it so much.
It's a percolator https://a.co/d/0Op3yz4 My only complaint is that it doesn't have a switch, but I resolved that with one that plugs into the outlet. Like I said, it's been great to us in the...
My only complaint is that it doesn't have a switch, but I resolved that with one that plugs into the outlet. Like I said, it's been great to us in the almost two months we had it. Uses less beans, no burned coffee. There's more dregs, I guess, but that's probably because I'm using my standard coffee filters rather than particular ones for percolators, but that doesn't bother me.
oh wow, I legit didn't know these were still a thing! I've never encountered one in-person, so my only understanding of how they work is from the technology connections video and a bit of...
oh wow, I legit didn't know these were still a thing! I've never encountered one in-person, so my only understanding of how they work is from the technology connections video and a bit of ancillary coffee snobbery. I guess it does have the advantage of not requiring a stovetop like a moka pot does. In any case, if you're enjoying it, I'm glad! That's ultimately the point of any coffee brewing method, after all.
I knew what video this would be before I even clicked on it hehehe. I have wanted to see him look at moka pots ever since he made this video tbh. Plenty of my coffee nerd channels have gone into...
I knew what video this would be before I even clicked on it hehehe.
I have wanted to see him look at moka pots ever since he made this video tbh. Plenty of my coffee nerd channels have gone into how to use them most optimally, but I feel like it'd be cool to see his assessment of the way they work, mechanically.
I ordered a new set of metal utensils after seeing the articles about the math mistake. The immediate cause was me snapping one of my plastic utensils in half (when I should have been using my...
I ordered a new set of metal utensils after seeing the articles about the math mistake. The immediate cause was me snapping one of my plastic utensils in half (when I should have been using my electric mixer). I normally would have just replaced the one but all the hubbub had me compare the price of grabbing a basic metal set instead and frankly for the price difference might as well get the sturdiness upgrade. The reduced (but certainly not eliminated) risk of random bits of plastic or random chemicals flaking into my food is just gravy on top.
Honestly probably a good thing -- missing such a sloppy error and then refusing to change your conclusions when it's revealed the actual values are an order of magnitude different is just ridiculously, egregiously bad.
I find it hard to judge off of this article. The responsibility you can put on the journal for the quality of the research that they publish is limited. Ultimately, they have to rely on external reviewers to properly vet the science.
What I gather from the article is that their peer review and editorial process is flawed and that is part of the problem here. But even in very good journals, sometimes stuff slips through the cracks.
Unfortunately, the article is quite vague on what the problems are exactly and I am not familiar with the study or journal in question to judge.
Basically what I am trying to say is that this could happen could happen in any journal, but the issue appears to be systematic. If it were an isolated incident they wouldn't (and probably shouldn't) get this kind of backlash.
Yeah, as much as these researchers are responsible for their math errors, it seems to be a larger issue with the journal
I don't know what is "normal" but 8 retractions in a month seems like a lot to me
Apologies, I know I'm agreeing at you in a way that sounds more like disagreeing. I think I mitigated it but wanted to mention it
Indeed! There seem to be larger issues and 8 retractions seems like a lot to me too.
I'm curious though why it happens.
My experience is that the editor only really checks if the paper is a good fit for the journal and then finds reviewers. So then are the editors not finding reviewers that are actually qualified? Or do they accept papers anyway even if the refs recommend rejection? Or does the journal just attract papers of a certain quality? So many questions...
Retractions every now and then happen and normally I would not blame the journal (I have enough other reasons to dislike academic publishers haha) even if the authors made such an obvious mistake. The process is not perfect even if done right. We also had once that one of our papers got accepted and we were left with the impression that none of the reviewers spent much time reading the manuscript. And that was a very prestigious journal in my field.
But the fact that it seems so common in their case is quite concerning and that's what people ought to be focussing on. That one specific retraction makes for a good headline but I'm a bit worried it makes people miss the point because they are not familiar with how journals work.
For what it's worth I think the people that need to know will understand, it's not something most people will think more about. They may think it's over this paper but I don't think that's necessarily a problem because I don't think it leads to bad outcomes unless they're the ones actively reading journals.(And if they were, they'd probably have the missing context.)
My guess? Neither. Overworked/underappreciated reviewers. Reviewing is thankless work, and usually people who's primary job is doing research are moonlighting/volunteering as reviewers. They probably don't have the time to check tiny details like that. There's also often a baseline assumption of competence: you're more checking what they said, rather than what they did.
Different fields might have different standards though. I'm not a chemist.
Absolutely true. From what I gather, most reviewers are just volunteers who do it to help the field.
But that's everywhere. And the thing is that this journal seem to have some problems there that other journals do not. So there must be something that the journal does worse.
Right, I think that the reviewers here likely did their job alright. Unless they saw the correction, saw the statement 'this doesn't change our conclusions' and said 'yep that's fine'. But that's unlikely if you ask me, and even then that's something the editors would've seen. And that's where I'd look for blame: editors who saw this whole hubbub and figured that the correction could be published. That correction isn't good enough as is, but it also highlights massive flaws with the published article. Retract while the authors revise their conclusions to fit the results I guess?
The specific issue in this case was that they quite literally multiplied two numbers wrong - they added a 0 to the result, making it an order of magnitude higher than it should have been. This went from “black plastics can leech almost the safe limit of bromine into your food” into “black plastics can leech about 10% the safe limit of bromine”.
If that still sounds bad, I’d note that you’d get about the same amount of bromine from the daily recommended amount of fresh fruit. A risk, nonetheless, but maybe one that looks different in different context.
There’s other issues with the study about the likelihood of these recycled plastics actually being in modern utensils. But the shockingly bad arithmetic is the main one. Like, you can just look the order of magnitude of the numbers and know it’s wrong. It’d be as if I said 24 * 40 = 24,000.
This is true to an extent, and I'm sure the decision was made due to a more systematic pattern of issues with this journal. But the multiplication error in this paper was so obviously bad that a ten-year-old could spot it, so it getting missed is a pretty dark mark for their peer review process. It's the kind of egregious error that makes any other pattern of mistakes at this journal much less surprising.
The language used in the correction, which claims this difference doesn't affect the conclusion of the paper, is where it moves from sloppy to "could only be worse if it was full-on fraud" imo, to an extent that I would mistrust any other paper written by this author. While this negatively affects my opinion of the author much more than it does my opinion of the journal, I'm pretty sure the journal had at least some authority to push back on that and demand a retraction or different wording in the correction instead? So it reinforces the sense that this journal's editors really do not care about the quality of what they publish.
Due to the initial, incorrect, results of the study, we actually dumped a vast majority of our black plastic, including our coffee pot, which was replaced with a metal percolator.
Annoying that I've had to send the correction to people I sent the initial publishing to, but I also don't regret replacing the vast majority of my plastic cooking stuff with metal, as well as the percolator, which makes delicious coffee and manages to somehow keep it hot without burning it like my old pot. I'm also super happy with my new metal spatulas, so cheers to buying better cooking tools, in spite of dubious science.
At the very least you're probably more comfortable using your cooking utensils now and can have better peace of mind; that's worth something!
I believe there's probably some kind of poison in pretty much everything we consume these days, especially if it's cheap or plastic; so trying to avoid it all is very difficult.
That's definitely true.
Trying to just generally get away from plastic in life is challenging, but at least that's one area of life that I don't have to think about it so much.
Wait, did you buy an actual percolator or a moka pot? I didn't know they still made actual percolators, which are pretty infamous for burning coffee.
It's a percolator
https://a.co/d/0Op3yz4
My only complaint is that it doesn't have a switch, but I resolved that with one that plugs into the outlet. Like I said, it's been great to us in the almost two months we had it. Uses less beans, no burned coffee. There's more dregs, I guess, but that's probably because I'm using my standard coffee filters rather than particular ones for percolators, but that doesn't bother me.
oh wow, I legit didn't know these were still a thing! I've never encountered one in-person, so my only understanding of how they work is from the technology connections video and a bit of ancillary coffee snobbery. I guess it does have the advantage of not requiring a stovetop like a moka pot does. In any case, if you're enjoying it, I'm glad! That's ultimately the point of any coffee brewing method, after all.
Yeah, percolators are not a good way to make coffee.
I knew what video this would be before I even clicked on it hehehe.
I have wanted to see him look at moka pots ever since he made this video tbh. Plenty of my coffee nerd channels have gone into how to use them most optimally, but I feel like it'd be cool to see his assessment of the way they work, mechanically.
My dad loves his old percolator haha, but there's a good chance he likes burnt coffee.
If it's what he's used to, I totally get it! Not everyone needs to be an obnoxious coffee nerd like me lol
I ordered a new set of metal utensils after seeing the articles about the math mistake. The immediate cause was me snapping one of my plastic utensils in half (when I should have been using my electric mixer). I normally would have just replaced the one but all the hubbub had me compare the price of grabbing a basic metal set instead and frankly for the price difference might as well get the sturdiness upgrade. The reduced (but certainly not eliminated) risk of random bits of plastic or random chemicals flaking into my food is just gravy on top.