“Fake peer review” / “Authenticity of the data”

Oh...I’m sorry, I thought I was still on the climate change/global warming/hurricane thread!

LOL !!

I got quite a laugh out of reading the initial posting in this thread. Why? Because it quotes figures from an unknown internet source. Anyone can make up numbers. I prefer to use the standard scientific method of basing my analysis on peer reviewed articles. Yes, I am sure there are some that are the result of fraud or error. The operative term is some as in a few. But, ultimately, these faux "scientific" reports are found out. That is the nature of science. A hypothesis is presented and then subsequent peer reviewed articles will either support or not support the original thesis. But, the original hypothesis or theory is not discarded because we don't want to believe anything.

As for me, I refuse to go back to thinking the universe, particularly the sun, revolves around the earth.

In science, we move on. We do not cast doubt on it, merely because some unknown publication comes up with some number that carries no citations but its own.

I just recently bought a used "vintage" (crazy to think) 1979 Webster Dictionary due to a conversation about what "agnostic" means. 2024 word salad definition results in an agnostic basically being an aethiest. 1979 a sense of openmindedness remained for an agnostic.

Interesting stuff relevant to today in a 1979 dictionary. Worth every bit of the $5 to order it off of thriftbook(dot)com.

Words matter and they are changing meanings all the time to fit narratives. Preserve history. Buy old books. Even the Bible is being changed.

This anti-science nonsense is really getting old. Yes. There are scientists who cheat and lie just like there are in any group whether it is a group of football players, cops, politicians, car drivers, golfers, etc. They are (by far!) not the majority of the groups.

If science were as completely corrupt as people here seem to be thinking, then we wouldn’t be here expressing our ignorant opinions because the technology that results from the vast majority of science would not work. The proof is in the pudding. You have a supercomputer in a tiny package that you call a smart phone. Science works. Period.

One more thing. Many of you think that retracted papers are a sign that science is wrong. No. It’s a sign that science works. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists seek the truth and when earlier notions are shown to be incorrect, they are abandoned. Religion not so much. The pope imprisoned Galileo because he looked at Venus through a telescope and realized that it was going around the Sun instead of the Earth because it went through phases just like the Moon. Religion, however, clings to old beliefs despite massive evidence to the contrary.

You use critical thinking skills for reasonableness. Otherwise, you’ll believe in nothing and that destroys a society. No matter what in life there are mistakes. Rarely perfection. You don’t base your beliefs on one person, one article, one of anything. You read a lot on the subject from many sources and usually the similarities between them all give you a reasonable truth.

It was caught due to the increased attention gained from colleges supporting antisemitism.

It is one of the few good things that happened from so many supposedly good colleges supporting hate.

Hopefully the lense stays on them from here on out.

Wow....this one took a weird turn!

Google exists and is easy to use. Here are some snippets found in seconds

...scientific publisher Wiley decided to shutter 19 scientific journals after retracting 11,300 sham papers.

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%.

Retraction Watch
 

This was always going on for a long time and its existance is not just recent as reported. But the retractions fortunately are. There are groups that have reviewed the scientific research for the past several decades and exposed the problems. One problem not mentioned is the time it takes for organizations to publish a retraction. In the interim and even after, other researchers still list the problematic paper(s) in their sources. Check out:

Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Check their faq page and link to the first post.

The Retraction Watch FAQ, including comments policy – Retraction Watch

Why write a blog about retractions? – Retraction Watch

Two infamous cases were from Reuben and Wakefield. These cases still have people citing incorrect conclusions to this day.

Also take a look at:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - Wikipedia

by John P.A. Ioannidis
Professor of Medicine (Stanford Prevention Research), of Epidemiology and Population Health

It is highly technical but essentially says that research is very complex, needs corresponding reproduced info to confirm, and since we are human, will always have multiple biases. In other words, there are degrees of truth in everything but teasing it out and confirming is the problem (answering the problem that is asked also helps).

TheWatcher

Nope, this is actually real. Climate "science" is part of the corruption. To be fair, it includes all areas of science.

A corrupt world based on lies and fraud is what you get when your "Golden Rule" is "The Ends Justifies The Means".

On the academic front, my son-in-law the Ag professor, was denied tenure a few years ago when he expressed skepticism that the current warming trend is due to a trace gas in the atmosphere. He foolishly imagined that academic freedom was a thing, and discovered that "settled science" says otherwise.

"It rubs the lotion into its skin. It does whatever it is told"

The generation of fraudulent papers is a booming industry. Providing fraudulent documents to government oversight functions is much cheaper than validating a genuine product designed to benefit people. A fine is imposed when fraud is discovered, but that is just the "cost of doing business." The pharmaceutical industry has been fined billions, but they keep churning out products and peddling them without regard for safety or effectiveness.

Yet ‘we’ still hit CVS and Walgreens et al and fill prescriptions from said industry....knowing this?! Sounds like their ‘plan’ is working! :1rotfl:

Data...unreliable.
 

You must be listening to Scott Adams podcast.😎😍

Let's put this in perspective.

1) Assume that the number of 39,000 retractions is correct for the past 10 years. For 2022 the reported retractions was 6393.

2) A simple google search shows that 2-3 million articles are being published annually. I will take the number of 2.8 million for 2022 which was on the Science.org website. It is based on Scopus and Web of Science publication databases

Just a moment...

3) That means the number of retracted articles is about 0.23% of all the articles published in 2022.

While the growth in retracted papers is disturbing, the system is still working. Having worked in science all my life, I have come across people who publish false data. When it eventually comes to light, that person's reputation is, at the very least, diminished. If we are going to evaluate science, let's at least use the data correctly. How many other professions are as good?