[Wondering]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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

You are talking in generalizations --be specific! What research is in question, that would affect the population of the US and the world? Otherwise, I can't take your sense of alarm serious.

[coconutmama]

When we were in high school one of our best and most used life courses was Truth in Advertising, along with a civics class. Hopefully it is still being taught but looking at society now, I doubt it. Everyone should attempt to question data & do their own free thinking but without the conspiracy hoopla.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by GizmoWhiskers

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.

The Torah, however, is unchanged. It is, word for word, exactly as it was when someone first wrote it. While scholars and archeologists debate when exactly that was, the general consensus is that it was at least 150 years before the Christian Christ was alleged to have been born.

New Torahs for synagogues/templars are written by hand, and if there's even a single letter that isn't tilted exactly the correct way, the entire thing is scrapped and they have to start over again.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by coconutmama

When we were in high school one of our best and most used life courses was Truth in Advertising, along with a civics class. Hopefully it is still being taught but looking at society now, I doubt it. Everyone should attempt to question data & do their own free thinking but without the conspiracy hoopla.

Wasn’t offered the former...but the latter, Civics, was one of my favorite and since abandoned for the most part. You knew every level of government....especially your local school boards and councils, and their elected members. It’s sad because most today can’t even tell you who their elected representatives are short of the presidency.

[Margefrog]

I don't think most "trust" what's published. Most papers are published for peer review, critique, compete, etc. They are meant for the professionals in that field. Reporters like to jump on things for their news. Anyone would be mistaken to trust that. I would think most folks take it as information on an evolving subject & change often like political polls.

[kendi]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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

Good solid studies are hard to come by. And even with the good ones it is well known in the world of statistics that one cannot rely on the results as being absolute. More good studies are needed to confirm.

[biker1]

It depends on where the work is being published and the discipline. The peer review process that my papers went through before being published in hard science journals was both extensive and lengthy. I suspect much of the retractions were in “softer” sciences. Regardless, this thread is essentially click bait meant to rile people up. I suspect the OP has never published a research paper.

Originally Posted by Margefrog

I don't think most "trust" what's published. Most papers are published for peer review, critique, compete, etc. They are meant for the professionals in that field. Reporters like to jump on things for their news. Anyone would be mistaken to trust that. I would think most folks take it as information on an evolving subject & change often like political polls.

[vonbork]

"May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It" by Alex Edmans on Amazon

[biker1]

Unless you have had a class in statistics you may not know how to interpret what you hear and read. A good recent example were the efficacy numbers that were published with the first release of the COVID-19 vaccines. I’m pretty sure that the vast majority of people misinterpreted the numbers. There was no malicious intent by anyone. The developers speak a different language than non-researchers.

Originally Posted by vonbork

"May Contain Lies: How Stories, Statistics, and Studies Exploit Our Biases—And What We Can Do about It" by Alex Edmans on Amazon

[huge-pigeons]

So if abc/nbc/cnn/msnbc/cbs and any of the other fake news channels say the same thing, then it’s true? All these fake news outlets get together each day to come up with the “theme” or “word” of the day to bash a person. It’s funny, you can watch 10 mins of each of these outlets during the day and see what the common “theme”/“word” is and I know millions of people believe this garbage.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

So true....I mean if ‘accuracy’ is the mission statement, you must rely solely on the journalistic integrity of Fox, NewsMax, Breitbart....or my favorite acronym news outlet...ToTV to satisfy your ‘thirst’!

My favorite Television source these days is News Nation.

I am tired of the three major networks and their opinions.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

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%.

Google "Retraction Watch" and Elisabeth Bik for a good start. The fraud is embarrassingly and shockingly real.

[Santiagogirl]

Agree with above concerns. Also, there seems to be a greater trend over the years for use of meta-analyses (combining a bunch of studies in one heap in order to increase number of outcomes measured, which should yield more statistically significant results). It's also one way of publishing a paper without the time, expense, or aggravation of setting up or conducting a study of your own. The authors rarely select every study available on the subject, & are often treating very different study methods as equivalent. A meta-analysis will describe its study selection criteria & state potential sources of error up front & in detail. However, a diligent reader who wishes to determine if the results are credible must essentially duplicate most of the authors' data gathering process & actually read the articles they are citing. This can take hours, & is seldom done by people using the information to make decisions. A poorly designed study can live forever in meta-analyses. Will become even more common with AI.

[rpalumberi]

mostly for the love of money & power

Originally Posted by Pugchief

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.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Yes, not as bad as the outright fraud, but what does that tell you about the integrity of the "researchers"?

You can't trust these people.

I don't think you should trust anyone! Doctors, lawyers, politicians, teachers, researchers ... nobody! Not even your pets. They aren't "kissing" you, they are tasting you. 😉 Just saying! 😏