IEEE's Dodgy Anti RF Paper - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: ItFinallyWorks
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2020, 04:57:40 am
content: So, it looks like some guys with an axe to grind against RF technologies got an incredibly bad paper published in a supposedly peer reviewed IEEE journal. Here's the link:https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9016183In a nutshell, the authors don't seem to have any credentials in RF test and measurement or medicine, but decided to get themselves a $300 "instrument" (discarding the sort of setups actual engineers use because, apparently, they didn't have the expertise to set them up or budget for the equipment, but seriously, the thing they used would be an embarrassment to a hobbyist), point it at various RF sources, then make a big deal over the fact that their "measurements" are higher than what some rather dubious sources say they should be (discarding all the rest of the scientific literature that puts the limits on RF emissions way higher, of course). And they somehow got IEEE to peer review and publish a paper on this. Some peer review. It actually managed to miss things any RF engineer (and probably many electrical engineers) would easily point out, like Bluetooth supposedly being 5GHz.Wouldn't be so bad (pretty run of the mill pseudo science stuff) except for it being published by somebody that should be trustworthy like IEEE. IEEE has comments for this paper if you want to let your displeasure be known.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2020, 05:15:00 am
content: IEEE has been publishing sub-par and outright wrong stuff for ages. They are just another for-profit organization. They may publish some useful stuff, but I would not trust them as an authority.Also that "IEEE Access" advertises "its hallmarks are a rapid peer review and publication process". That looks like a dump for people to get their PhD publication norms.

author: ItFinallyWorks
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2020, 05:33:40 am
content: Hmm, didn't know IEEE had fallen that far. I thought alot better of them.Wonder what sort of reviewers are doing this rapid review. Poorly trained AI? Chimpanzees? Call center employees (the ones from "Microsoft" who say your computer has a virus)? I'll bet your right, this is somebody's PhD paper that they threw together to have something to get the degree. Any idea if Birla Institute of Technology and Science is any good or some hole in the wall?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2020, 05:38:36 am
content: Quote from: ItFinallyWorks on April 29, 2020, 05:33:40 amYou just need to be careful with actual publication. IEEE Proceedings is a reasonably high quality journal. It actually has real peer review. All other stuff they have is a money grab scheme.Quote from: ItFinallyWorks on April 29, 2020, 05:33:40 amProbably the same group of people that want to publish. So they just "review" each other in that cesspool.Quote from: ItFinallyWorks on April 29, 2020, 05:33:40 amNo idea.

author: Haenk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 29, 2020, 08:26:33 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on April 29, 2020, 05:50:34 amWhat I find amazing is that half a dozen of probably not-too-stupid guys come up with *this*. While the topic is interesting, the methods and "instruments" used are not even on science fair level, coming to a "scientific" conclusion is just comical. Applying for a job stating this paper would certainly receive a thumbs down from me.(Who would have thought that the lowest radiation is in the middle of both transmitters.)

author: ItFinallyWorks
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2020, 04:59:48 am
content: Quote from: Haenk on April 29, 2020, 08:26:33 amThe other thing I find interesting is not only are the methods and instruments bad, but it's not like there's anything really novel here. Interesting topic, sure, but RF emissions testing is hardly new stuff. I mean there's guys that basically do this sort of thing all day every day. But I have no idea why what theses guys did is even worthy of a paper. Sure, maybe it would be OK (if they used decent methods and equipment) for a senior project for undergrad or a class project but that's about it. Now, if they had somebody on the team who was a biology or medical researcher and they could show some sort of effect or lack of effect, that would be worth something, but otherwise its just guys making RF measurements, so not particularly exciting, even if done well, unless the topic is RF measurement.Quote from: blueskull on April 29, 2020, 05:50:34 amI suppose even IEEE has succumbed to it. I mean I expect this sort of thing from low tier journals that just exist to collect revenue (like that one time some guys got a machine generated paper published:http://news.mit.edu/2015/how-three-mit-students-fooled-scientific-journals-0414), but I would have hoped that IEEE, supposedly being THE organization for EEs, would have higher standards, if for no other reason than to prevent putting a veneer of quality on junk. I guess sometimes the profits win.Quote from: ataradov on April 29, 2020, 05:38:36 amMaybe that's just what I'm used to from them. I've seen plenty of stuff in those that isn't super useful, missing key details, or maybe rather nichy, but don't think I've ever seen anything that's obviously junk science.Could be that it's just people who publish who review, like you said. Of course if it's basically just students reviewing each other, then it seems like it sort of turns into the blind leading the blind. Would have thought though that even a decent PhD student or MS student would have caught at least some of this stuff. But then schools can vary pretty wildly in quality, as can students.

author: oPossum
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 30, 2020, 05:05:10 am
content: This is all you need to know about 5G safety.