I just received an interesting comment by someone who hides behind the name SANDBOX:
Technically, your Springer books should have been peer-reviewed, and you should have declared your conflicts of interest with CSI(COP), Sense About Science, GWUP, Science Media Centre, and other pseudoskepticist activist organizations. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the code of conduct policies. If your books were exempt from peer review, that undermines their credibility.
I replied as follows:
I always declare my conflicts of interest truthfully.
And SANDBOX countered:
If that were true, your affiliations would appear in your books and articles, starting with the Science Media Centre and CSICOP. But in all the articles you’ve published, that never appears!
Apart from being called a liar here, this raises several interesting questions:
- Are CSI(COP), Sense About Science, GWUP, Science Media Centre pseudoskepticist activist organizations?
- Am I a member of CSI(COP), Sense About Science, GWUP and the Science Media Centre?
- Is SANDBOX correct when assuming that books are normally peer-reviewed?
Ad 1
I think the answer is NO.
Ad 2
Yes, I am a ‘fellow’ of CSI; no, I am not a member of either Sense About Science, GWUP or the Science Media Centre.
Ad 3
I had previously stated that books are not normally peer-reviewed by publishers, only book proposals are. This was based on my experience of publishing ~60 book. As this experience might be misleading, I asked META-AI:
“Are books normally peer-reviewed by publishers like scientific articles?”
Here is the answer:
No, books typically don’t go through the same peer-review process as scientific articles. Publishers often have editors review book proposals and manuscripts for quality, relevance, and marketability.
Some academic books might have chapters reviewed by experts, but it’s not the same rigorous peer-review process used for journal articles. Fact-checking and editing still occur, but the process varies depending on the publisher and book type.
To be sure, I asked a second question: “What is a conflict of interest in terms of publishing a book?”
Here is the answer:
- A conflict of interest in publishing a book occurs when an author’s personal or financial relationships could influence the content, tone, or presentation of the book. Examples include:
- Financial gain from promoting specific products or ideas
- Personal connections to individuals or organizations featured in the book
- Affiliations with companies or organizations that could benefit from the book’s content
- Authors and publishers often disclose potential conflicts of interest to maintain transparency and credibility.
In conclusion: books are not normally peer-reviewed and if they were I would have no conflicts of interest to declare.
12 Responses to My conflicts of interest revisited
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I look forward to reading SANDBOX’s interesting books, whenever they get published…..
“SANDBOX” is an acronym and stands for “Stupid and Offensive Bovine Xcrement”.
Best ignored!
Rawlins, I’ve also read your book. It wasn’t peer-reviewed either, and if your level of discussion is just shouting and insulting, I’m not surprised that the discussion of your book focuses on whether Hahnemann spoke of proving as an experience, as if you were discovering anything new…
Somehow it evokes the picture of a slightly different type of box here.
Oops! Correction needed:
Stupid and Bovine Offensive Xcrement.
Perfect, you confirm that your books, in general, haven’t been peer-reviewed, and that you haven’t had the modesty to declare your affiliation with the CSI (COP) in any of them. This has two consequences: your books represent nothing reliable (as you yourself keep repeating), and you contradict your friend Richard Rasker (who mentions in his book that peer review should be a requirement for even having any credibility).
As for the fact that you only have one conflict of interest, I highly doubt it:
American Council on Science and Health, you appear as an author in the agrochemical lobby magazine Priorities https://www.acsh.org/priorities-magazine-spring-2018
You were awarded the John Maddox Prize (from Sense About Science) in 2015, which is like being awarded a prize by Monsanto, Bayer, or Coca-Cola https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/2015-john-maddox-prize/
Hear, Hear, Rasker, RPG, Mojo, Rawlins, and others, Edzard has admitted to hiding conflicts of interest, he doesn’t mention the ones he has, and his idolized books haven’t been peer-reviewed!
I have not “onlt one” but NO conflict of interest; fellowships acknowledge exceptional contributions, achievements, or expertise within a particular field. Being named a fellow signifies respect and admiration from peers. Its not a membership.
Sorry to hear that you seem too limited to comprehend this.
And with this final comment I end our dull exchanes.
GET A LIFE!
Don’t feed the troll!🧌
You have to give “Sandbox” credit for one thing. If he has not learned anything else, he certainly knows how to use the Gish Gallop. He is even better at this technique than @Dullman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Yes, as discussed here:
https://edzardernst.com/2024/01/homeopathy-does-not-work-beyond-context-effects-not-even-in-switzerland/#comment-150054
But it is true that Edzard Ernst’s books are not peer-reviewed, so even the biggest “skeptic” against homeopathy admits to your face that his books lack editorial rigor, since if they were peer-reviewed, several of his exaggerations would have to be removed.
show me a book on SCAM that is peer-reviewed;
If you want my peer-reviewed papers on homeopathy, go on mediline – currently 102 articles that might keep you busy.