[Willie Green]

In academia, the phenomena has long been known as "Publish or Perish".

It's related to the widespread pursuit of "junk science" as well.
Academic "researchers" publish "scientific" studies that support predetermined outcomes merely for the purpose of securing grants that are awarded politically.

[lelio]

studies that support predetermined outcomes
Right on the money there. That's highlighted by the obvious mis-referencing of articles by the author of a new paper. He doesn't care what's in the original article, he has his own agenda to persue.

[Dan(9698)]

>>> for the purpose of securing grants that are awarded politically.

Why go to a lot of work. If the conclusion isn't PC they won't get any more grants. Correct has nothing to do with it.

[185JHP]

Not to mention painting "tumors" on mice. Wunderkind in their own minds...

[Darksheare]

Like the 'professor' who wrote that anti-gun paper who gto hoist by his own petard.. and then some?
Naaah. Scientists wouldn't do that! There's no politics in science! / sarcasm

[TopQuark]

Sounds like you've never even been to the same room with a scientist. But go ahead: demeaning someone make you look taller. The other way, of course, is to grow, but that's much harder: you'll have to know what you are talking about.

[_Jim]

In academia, the phenomena has long been known as "Publish or Perish".

a dysfunctional response ...

The story clearly states:

A cunning statistical study has exposed scientists as sloppy ... . When they write up their work and cite other people's papers, most do not bother to read the original.

...

They noticed ... that misprints in references are fairly common, and that a lot of the mistakes are identical. This suggests that many scientists take short cuts, simply copying a reference from someone else's paper rather than reading the original source.

What has this to do directly with "Publish or Perish" (OTHER THAN it may be the result of the pressure to 'P and P', but, that was not the *subject* of this story now was it ...)