Posted on 05/10/2023 2:52:50 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA
But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia’s “publish or perish” culture
When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010—and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers’ group report.
“It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.”
His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. “Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff,” says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were “heavily compromised” by articles from paper mills.
(Excerpt) Read more at science.org ...
A website called “retraction watch” gives a clue of the numbers
Review by colleagues is gone along with the first amendment. Getting any dissenting truths out meets dissent itself.
Recall when The Lancet and The Imperial College of London both published the expected Covid deaths early into the ‘pandemic’. The sensationalized and exaggerated numbers in those papers lead to inappropriate policies, not just in the US, but across the globe.
I remember Allan Sokol’s papers. Classic.
have a friend with a phd in meteorology. he said he could get all the funding he wanted as long as the work was tied in to climate change.
There is no reward mechanism for professors and students in the universities for replicating and verifying past research work. This article demonstrates that.
Centralized planning always runs into problems whether its running an economy or doling out research grants.
Trust the science!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.