[markjo]

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

No, because Eureka Alerts doesn't host papers.  Rather, it hosts press releases about papers so you could probable pay them to post a press release about your "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper.

AAAS is the world’s largest multidisciplinary scientific society. It organizes conferences, publishes peer-reviewed journals, and generally advocates for science literacy and the responsible use of science in all areas of public life. But in a troubling contradiction, it’s also home to a global clearinghouse for unvetted PR messages from universities, medical centers, journals, drug companies and other organizations who pay the EurekAlert! service to broadcast their new releases.

The messages put out by these organizations sometimes contain egregious levels of spin and exaggeration designed to attract the attention of journalists and the public. That spin and exaggeration can find its way into news stories or get picked up by aggregators and rebroadcast to the public verbatim.

[Tom Bishop]

According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.

[Rama Set]

What an underwhelming statement of oversight integrity.

[Curious Squirrel]

Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

[stack]

According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

[Tom Bishop]

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious. The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science. In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

[Tom Bishop]

Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

Your accusation that the AAAS is posting trash to its website is hardly compelling.

The examples in the link Markjo posted are about things like "eating more fish could prevent Parkinson’s disease based on an in vitro lab study of fish proteins" and "magnetized wire could be used to detect cancer in people based on a study conducted in pigs." All of that could be true.

What studies did your source create or cite to contradict those sources?

Nothing.

Thus it is actually your source which is trash. Experiments show the truth. Not opinion. I would suggest learning what science is and is not. Someone saying "not true" and "dubious!!" is not science. Science needs to be demonstrated. Show me what scientific method your source followed to make those claims. The sources in the studies in question certainly did use the scientific method of experimentation.

If your source cannot follow simple science integrity then it is not science--it's rubbish. Your source needs more than opinion to call such studies trash.

[Curious Squirrel]

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious.

Evidence? You can't just make a claim like this without evidence.

The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science.

Again, evidence? Baseless claim, whereas the article linked above provides multiple examples and success that the organization pays little to no attention to vetting these links.

In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

Inconclusive at best final conclusion based upon faulty premises. You've not shown any evidence they apply a strict filter, not that they support all articles they link to. In fact we have evidence just above starting the opposite. I.e.

AAAS disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of material posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions and for the use of any information obtained through EurekAlert!. Support from sponsors does not influence content or policy.

[Curious Squirrel]

Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

Your accusation that the AAAS is posting trash to its website is hardly compelling.

The examples in the link Markjo posted are about things like "eating more fish could prevent Parkinson’s disease based on an in vitro lab study of fish proteins" and "magnetized wire could be used to detect cancer in people based on a study conducted in pigs." All of that could be true.

What controlled studies did your source create or cite to contradict those sources?

Nothing.

Therefore it is actually your source which is trash. Experiments show the truth. Not opinion. I would suggest learning what science is and is not. Someone saying "not true" and "dubious!!" is not science. Science needs to be demonstrated. Show me what scientific method your source followed to make those claims. The sources in the studies certainly did use the scientific method of experimentation.

If your source cannot follow simple science integrity then it is not science--it's rubbish. Then need more than opinion to tell us that the studies that the AAAS is posting are trash.

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

[Tom Bishop]

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence which the organization references. That is not how science work. If you think something is false you must prove yourself through experiment.

However, your efforts at disparaging this organization appears fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.

[Curious Squirrel]

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.

It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.

[markjo]

According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.

Come now Tom, where's your good old fashioned Zetetic skepticism?  What exactly do they mean by "a basic level of integrity"?  Did they read the paper in question to verify that the press release accurately reflects the content of the paper?  Have you read the paper in question to verify that it says what you think it says? 

[stack]

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious. The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science. In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

No, wrong again. This thread has officially turned into Bishop’s Failure. These are press releases. Yours was written by the papers author/people and submitted to eureka alert. Perhaps as a paid submission. As long as the paper is in a peer reviewed journal eureka alerts will copy and paste the the press release and post it along with their disclaimer. Like I wrote, it’s called publicity.

If you got a flat earth paper into a peer reviewed journal, wrote a press release for it and submitted it to eureka, they would post your press release, most likely for a fee. Why don’t you give it a try. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

[Curious Squirrel]

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.

It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.

Well this bodes ill for any suggestions of strong quality control. I've received word that requests for takedowns or title adjustments should be sent through the media contact for a listing. In this case the contact is the very man who wrote the article!

I will attempt to request he remove it or similar, but I do not have high hopes. In the meantime I will look for other options.

Either way, this pretty much nails down that AAAS and EurekAlert do indeed have very little hand normally in these press releases. As the earlier article stated.

[Tom Bishop]

If they aren't taking it down or fixing it as they do with other material, then it sounds like EurekaAlert! is promoting it.

https://www.eurekalert.org/static.php?view=statement20110118

The non-profit research news service EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011. The news release was swiftly removed from EurekAlert!, and staff are taking steps to set the record straight with all reporters who had seen it.

The news release, submitted by Marshall Hoffman of Hoffman & Hoffman public relations on behalf of Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US), reported a rate of global warming inconsistent with other respected sources of information regarding global climate change.

EurekAlert! is a non-profit research news service, supported by a global consortium of leading science, technology, health, and social science institutions, providing free public access to an array of science-related information as well as free embargoed access for journalists.

[Curious Squirrel]

If they aren't taking it down or fixing it as they do with other material, then it sounds like EurekaAlert! is promoting it.

B does not follow A at all Tom. Not only is this post from 8 years ago, but there's a limit to what one person can do. You're letting your bias dictate what you see again. Reminder: If they heavily monitored postings they would have no need for their disclaimer.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. No reply from the media contact yet ( not that I expect one) and if I don't get one by Wednesday I'll attempt a more direct request with EurekAlert.

[garygreen]

people actually keep metrics on this sort of thing.  for example, this paper has been read/downloaded a number of times and never been cited.  to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhyEs..29..142S/metrics 

[Tom Bishop]

According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

https://www.quora.com/Did-most-of-Einsteins-papers-really-have-no-citations

Did most of Einstein's papers really have no citations?

Bill Bray, (Retired) PhD/Physicist R&D (Director) at U.S. Department of Defense

"Papers written by Einstein [not co-authored] have been cited ZERO TIMES in the past century."

Are Einstein's works invalid?

According to Researchgate the paper has nearly 5000 reads, which is a quite different number than 65.

[garygreen]

According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

https://www.quora.com/Did-most-of-Einsteins-papers-really-have-no-citations

oh, shit, well if some random guy on quora says it, then it must be true.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=%20%20author%3A%22%5Eeinstein%2C%20A%22&sort=citation_count%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

einstein's papers have been cited thousands of times.  lol ffs just scroll down to the references section of the very paper you posted.

According to Researchgate the paper has nearly 5000 reads, which is a quite different number than 65.

that's worse.  if it's been read 5,000 times and never cited in anyone else's work, then it's even less accurate to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community.

getting published in a journal doesn't imply that the publishers agree with your results.  that's not how it works.  it's really not how it works in a journal like physics essays. 

[Tom Bishop]

Research better. Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited. It's right there in the link you provided.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/p_=0&q=%20%20author%3A%22%5Eeinstein%2C%20A%22&sort=citation_count%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

Sort by Citation Count and click on Go to Bottom.



I count 114 Einstein entries with zero citations. 77 with five or under.

291 entries total. Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

Anything not cited is invalid, right?