Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2373490)

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2373490)

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2373490)

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2373508)

The system isn't working if 39,000 papers had to be retracted. I'm assuming they didn't even catch all the fake news. This is a travesty of intellectualism.

The other day, the FBI came out with a report that violent crime was down. Except it didn't include crime stats from several large, dangerous cities that refused to report data. So they just left it out. Everyone who lives in a city knows crime is up, but they insist "the data" shows otherwise.

So why would you believe anything (climate change, crime, inflation, unemployment, drug trials, etc.) if time and again, the "experts" have straight up lied to your face?

Caveat Emptor neighbors.

Originally Posted by PugMom (Post 2373812)

yet another reason to question everything

Originally Posted by spd2918 (Post 2373513)

It looks like the digital availability is making for more scrutiny. It makes me wonder if the older papers were just as bad.

I'd like to know what percentage of fake papers were on climate change.

Originally Posted by dtennent (Post 2373699)

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?

Originally Posted by Pugchief (Post 2373490)

For those of you who "trust the media", "trust the experts", "trust the science" or "trust the government", or think data is unbiased or even consistently accurate:

Recent evidence indicates the constant pressure to generate data and publish papers may be affecting the quality of research and fueling retractions of research papers.

In the past decade, there have been more than 39,000 retractions, and the annual number of retractions is growing by around 23% each year.

Nearly half the retractions were due to issues related to the authenticity of the data.

Plagiarism was the second most common reason research papers were retracted, accounting for 16% of retractions.

Fake peer review was another reason why research papers were retracted.

Read the rest here

Originally Posted by CybrSage (Post 2373679)

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

Originally Posted by dougjb (Post 2373589)

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.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2373810)

......What the US should worry about is Chinese Universities producing MORE quality scientists than US Universities. In the US the "best and brightest" students go into business with a goal of ending up on Wall Street. That happened about 1980. In the 50s, 60s and 70s
the best students went into Science and Engineering.

Originally Posted by Blueblaze (Post 2373682)

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"