Category Archives: Peer review fail

APCBEE Procedia 2

Here is an excellent example of scientific insanity: Influence of Fish Feed Containing Corn-Cob Was Fermented By Trichoderma Sp, Aspergillus Sp, Rhizopus Oligosporus To The Rate of Growth of Java Barb, published in Elsevier’s journal APCBEE Procedia 2 (2012). DOI

The only other article I could find by the authors Rita Rostika and Ratu Safitri is a very similar paper presented at International Seminar Biotechnology in 2011.

So, what is bad about this paper? The main problem is the language, which is so bad that any responsible editor should have declined the paper just based on the poor English. But the editor apparently didn’t. The reviewers (if there were any) apparently didn’t recommend that the paper should be rejected either. I will just point to the paragraph “Research design”, which in its entirety reads:

Research Design applied use Completely Randomized Design, 6 treatments and 3 times replication, and the treatment are : Difference between treatment for every test parameter there seen through F test at trust level 95%. Continuation test there used if F test gives real different result by using doubled distance test Duncan.
The conclusion is examplary short, but I’m not sure I understand it anyway.

Fish feed containing corncob fermented about 5 %, gave the highest growth rate of java barb which are 2.01 %.

The acknowledgement makes me a bit worried. Does it imply that only one of the authors wrote the article?

I would like to thanks to Professor Soeharsono (RIP) and Dr.Sutandar Zainal (RIP) as my promotors

ScienceInsanity thinks this kind of science should not be promoted.

Tagged , , ,