[] Quote:


Ah. So you are changing the subject. Fine by me. The whole conflict of itnerest thing was getting pretty silly anyway.

Silly on your part.

Quote:


Or maybe not.

There is no financial conflict of interest.

So what would you call a financial conflict of interest? If your wages or  main source of grants coming from Pew or the GBRMPA don't qualify what would?

Quote:


Again you merely demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of authors are reporting their own work. The only time they review the work of others is when they do some kind of meta analysis/literature review. Unless of course you are claiming that that the journal in question got the authors to act as their own 'peer reviewer'. Is that what you are claiming, and if so, do you have any evidence of this?

Come off it, there are plenty of times scientists review the work of others. Also there is the fact that their work and recommendations come under the sphere of operations of the GBRMPA (their employer) - and here they are reviewing the effectiveness of the very same. 

Seriously PJ, stop regurgitating what Walter Starck says. He is doing you no favours. He is probably sitting back having a good chuckle at your expense.

More ad hominen.

1272110712] Quote:


For starters, to get a conflict of interest, there has to be two interests involved. Did you mean to say Pew AND GBRMPA?

Duh, those two aren't in conflict here, in fact they have a similar agenda.

Quote:


Sure, in the peer review process, or in a meta analysis, or when they read what has been published. Almost all 'original' research that is published is in the form of the researchers themselves writing about their own work. That you and Walter seem to think that it's occurence here is even noteworthy speaks volumes of your understanding of academic research. In fact, along with the conflict of interest clause when submitting a paper is a clause stating that it is your own work, not someone else's.

So who's ignorant? There are plently of papers that take the form of reviews of other scientist's work and they don't neccessarily take the form of a formal peer review.

BTW, you did not take the chance to clarify what you meant with:

Quote:


Did you mean that the authors were their own 'peer reveiwers', or were you just stating the obvious about them publishing their own work?

That they are part of the GBRMPA is the most concern (see below).

Quote:


Again, is this an exercise in stating the obvious, or were you unaware that organisations who employ researchers to research expect them to research the topic they are bieng paid to research, and not say sit on a GBRMPA salary pondering astrophysics? Is this really something new to you, and did you stop to think about whether you really understood the situation before regurgitating Walter's BS accusations?

Sometimes the obvious has to be stated. Do you live under a rock? This sort of conflict of interest is a major and widely recognised issue (and it gets worse with the Pew connections). Eg drug company scientists publishing on the effacacy of a drug they have developed, tobacco scientists on the health effects of smoking etc.

PS where did I say that GBRMPA scientists should be pondering astrophysics? Didn't I also say that by definition a conflict of interest does not have to manifest itself in their work for it to exist. Sadly though in this case this seems to have occured. 

[] Quote:


You never seem to want to elaborate on the interests that are supposedly in conflict. Why is that? Are you afraid it will merely reveal your own biases, rather than reality?

No, it's just your selective amnesia at work. I have said what the conflicts of interest are often enough.

Quote:


Yes, but they aren't 'original research' are they? In fact I believe Starck himself has criticised this area for the extent of review publications.

Duh, thats why they are called reviews. The paper in question also takes the form of reviewing past research.

Quote:


What exactly do you think I mean by a formal peer review? Do you know when this usually happens?

When a paper is considered for publication.

Quote:


You seem to be having trouble with the question. You made the claim that they were reviewing their own work. Or at least, you regurgitated Walter Starcks BS claim. Do you know what it actually means? It looks like meaningless gibberish to me.

They all have a common purpose/ interest through their affiliations do they not? Why is it so had for you to accept that this creats the environment for conflict of interest?

Quote:


No it isn't. It is how things have always worked. Scientists publish their own work, not the work of others.

They often review the work of others. In some fields there are as many reviews published as is original work.

Quote:


There the conflict of interest is fairly obvious. That is not the case with this particular paper. The issues you have raised about 'self review' apply equally well to every single piece of original research that gets published, in any field.

Thanks for admitting that, as is in this case when all the authors are connected to the GBRMPA as their employer or main source of funding (plus the 3 Pew fellows).

PS: As to 'self review', how often are the author's conclusions so at odds with their own research results? 

Quote:


Sure, but so far you have not established that the conflict of interest exists. If anything, you are trying desperately to avoid it. You are skirting round the issue with every single post.

No you just ignore what I have said or selectively quote a small portion of it. What does that say about your state of mind.

PS: what do you think is more important, whether a conflict of interest does exist or whether it actually manifests itself in the form of a misleading, flawed paper? Why won't you discuss Walter Starcks criticisms of the paper?

] Quote:


Yes I read that. Are you saying it is not possible for you to elaborate on what these conflcits are beyond stating that they exist?

I stated what they are, not merely that they exist.

Quote:


I still don't get what your problem is with this.

Well you took up the point of reviews vs original work. My problem is their reviews/ conclusions aren't supported by their own research.

Quote:


So were you saying that the journal got them to do their own peer review?

No, I said the paper takes the form of reviewing their past research and drawing wider conclusions.

Quote:


No PJ, that is not what creates the conflict of interest with drug companies. All researchers are employed by someone. The source of the conlict of interest for drug companies does not exist with the GBRMPA. That is why I keep asking you to explain what you think the conflicts are, because you are obviously confused about something.

It's a very similar situation (drug companies vs the GBRMPA). They are both corporations that want to perpetuate their existance (and expand if possible). How do you think they differ?

PS: Why did you chop my last three questions out? Didn't like them?

9] Quote:


What's the differece? Can you state that something exists without saying what it is? And why are you still avoiding this?

Are you really that thick? I have stated what the conflict of interest is and you even acknowledged that a few posts back. Once again the conflict is the main source of funding or direct employer (ie the GBRMPA) vs the public interest.

Quote:


Ah, so the paper covers no 'original' work?

It might - depends on your definition or whether some has been published before.

Quote:


Are you sure the GBRMPA is a corporation?

It's a government corporation or entity. It has a budget and interest in perpetuating itself. Now why don't you answer the question, ie how does it differ from a drug company doing it's own research?

Quote:


Because I don't have a response yet. I only quote the bits I am responding to. There is no point quoting something you aren't responding to.

Yes but why don't you respond? Do you intend to or hope they will go away?

I have started a new thread on the Pew angle, seeing as I am having such difficulty getting a sensible explanation out of you here.

Quote:


That's because you are the one making the claims. I'm just asking you to explain them. I can't do that for you.

Quote:

There is a subtle yet significant difference between repeating yourself and explaining yourself.

Quote:


That is all that was appropriate, given the extent of your 'argument'.

Quote:


I neither confirm nor deny anything about the specific article at the moment.

Quote:


There is the universities, and the various aquaculture startups. If you want to make big money their is plenty if you can get into biochem and genetics. Plus, research careers are built on reputation. No researcher is going to deliberately hitch their career to a sinking ship. And who would want to be a lowly paid government researcher like you used to be if you also had to mislead people? If they are so poorly paid, what makes you think money is their motivation? If you wanted to make a name for yourself as a marine researcher, you don't tow the line. You do what Walter is trying to do and prove everyone wrong. Except you make sure you are right before opening your mouth.

Every researcher has some motivation to give themselves and their organisation a plug. This is more than adequately acknowledged by listing your institution on the front page. It is certainly nothing like the conflict of interest you get with drug companies. Most people who work for institutions have some level of resentment towards it.

The Pew thing on the other hand is interesting, which is why I started a new thread on it. It seems to be a recurring theme. Can you back it up?