why is so much of scientific publishing fake? is any of it real?

why is so much of scientific publishing fake? is any of it real?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Publish or perish model
    Now everyone needs to publish whatever they can
    who the frick cares if it's replicable or not
    just push it out, make it a numbers game

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      HOW MANY OF THSES FRICKING THREADS DO WE NEED?

      The same fricking arguments being explained over, and over, and over.

      Scientists ARE NOT SAINTS, they're PEOPLE, and PEOPLE ARE NOT PERFECT, that's why.

      FRICK OFF
      all fields

      This. The horse has already bolted. It's too late to shut the bar. Academics are now judged by output, for jobs and funding. So of course the quality is going to drop. But for actually researchers in the field it is obvious what is crap and what is interesting. You can also smell out 95% of the bullshit just by reading it through carefully. Honest errors and genuine fraud are harder to see, but if a result is significant people will try and replicate it. It doesn't matter if every paper is correct, people working in the field will not just assume that. That's also why it's pretty much impossible to accurately review research outside your field.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That sounds pretty reassuring but what are scientists doing to stop academic fraudsters and scammers from receiving taxpayers' money? Or is it just accepted practice now?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That is an issue for funding agencies, not scientists. Genuine fraud is pretty rare outside of medical research.

          >But for actually researchers in the field it is obvious what is crap and what is interesting.
          If that's true, then scientists are willing participants in fraud they know about for decades but don't expose.

          Nope. Crap in this case means uninteresting. Literally not worth the effort of refuting, most of it probably isn't wrong it's just boring. Who is going to pay the month of salary and possibly the journal fees of a paper that just says "nope"? No one. Most of these papers never even get cited apart from self-citations. If a paper was so uninteresting that you didn't finish reading it why would you waste a month working on a rebuttal? And there are dozens of papers published every day, even in a small subfield.
          Actually proving fraud is very hard. Hence why it makes it into the newspapers when a significant case is demonstrated unambiguously. It takes months of sleuthing through data, if someone has even left enough evidence.
          What happens most of the time is that results cannot be replicated, but that also takes years. And it doesn't necessary mean there was fraud but a result that cannot be reproduced will stop being cited after a while. and be forgotten.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So it's fine for people to just get PhDs with erroneous papers and falsified data. Got it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No one was even talking about PhDs, try reading. It is the job of the committee, supervisor and referee to prevent fraud. It is not up to randos in the community.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It is not up to randos in the community.
            If you're not relevant to the discussion then shut the frick up and be quiet moron

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >it's fine for people to just get PhDs with erroneous papers and falsified data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That is an issue for funding agencies, not scientists. Genuine fraud is pretty rare outside of medical research.
            Passing the buck. lol. no wonder science is such a shitshow.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Passing the buck of funding decisions, to the people who make the decisions about funding? How horrible, someone is being asked to do their fricking job.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No one was even talking about PhDs, try reading. It is the job of the committee, supervisor and referee to prevent fraud. It is not up to randos in the community.

            >There are no scientists in funding agencies
            >supervisors referees commitee members aren't scientist
            lol

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >But for actually researchers in the field it is obvious what is crap and what is interesting.
        If that's true, then scientists are willing participants in fraud they know about for decades but don't expose.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Academia is FUBAR. Plenty of it that's real but good luck distinguishing it from all the borderline AI generated schlock.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its Sophon sabotage

    ?si=dG82gFntbSmISLnJ
    Every scientist is honest, the science is just changed to make them look bad

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's the Chinese. They flood every journal with their low quality papers. Even the ones that aren't AI generated usually just say things that aren't true, or just steal content and figures verbatim from other sources.
    The worst part is that as a reviewer, you can't even just reject their shit, since most fields are so small that blinding doesn't actually work and they'll retaliate by rejecting your papers when they get selected as a reviewer. They also will steal your work during the review process, and threaten to reject papers that don't cite their work to inflate their numbers. I wish the journals would just tell them to frick off.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. China makes up an estimated 60% of the papers marked as fraudulent. India and Turkey come a close second and third.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        USA universities produce just as much fraud as any other institutions, nothing they publish is real. India and China just have bigger numbers because they're more populous nations.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If there is a measure to game, they will game it. There is no good faith anything when interacting with them, its like talking to an degreed gypsy.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because your career progress as a scientist depends on how much fancy stuff you publish, and we have very little ability to detect fraudsters. This results in the fraudsters making it into high positions at far disproportionate rates.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Don't worry, it's just a small number of Chinese researchers, in a few departments, at a handful of Chinese universities doing this. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Science used to be a hobby or something that you devoted your whole life to in the 19th century. Now it's highly competed yelling and grant farming contest. There is a high incentive for cheating and fabricating results, so of course chinks are going to do it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This. Science used to be a hobby only, a leisurely pursuit, privileged, not a career building rat race trying to make a living.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >is any of it real?
    no

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    HOW MANY OF THSES FRICKING THREADS DO WE NEED?

    The same fricking arguments being explained over, and over, and over.

    Scientists ARE NOT SAINTS, they're PEOPLE, and PEOPLE ARE NOT PERFECT, that's why.

    FRICK OFF
    all fields

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      calm down bro

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He’s got a point though - this thread has been made daily for fricking months now and it’s just the same shit every time. China sucks and people aren’t perfect. There’s really only so many ways to say it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because science or "soience" is pushed as the new technocratic religion.
      Breaking the illusion is sort of important

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Because science or "soience" is pushed as the new technocratic religion.
        No, your sensitive ego and your unbalanced, biased mind is interpreting things that way. EVERY SCIENTIST is well aware of what a hypothesis is, what a theory is, and what a law is, EVERY SINGLE ONE, and we know that what is communicated comes from MODELLING, and a good science communicator, makes ALL OF THAT QUITE CLEAR.

        If you're not aware of that THAT'S YOUR IGNORANCE, and if you're focusing on shitty science communicators, THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

        Again: FRICK OFF

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >massively triggered angry screeching and profanity lacked tirade guy accuses everyone else of having a sensitive ego
          classic projection

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they're still right, ya know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I too, believe in censorship.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How much is fraud and how much is simply not understanding how to use statistics?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous
  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This. China makes up an estimated 60% of the papers marked as fraudulent. India and Turkey come a close second and third.

    Don't worry, it's just a small number of Chinese researchers, in a few departments, at a handful of Chinese universities doing this. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

    It's the Chinese. They flood every journal with their low quality papers. Even the ones that aren't AI generated usually just say things that aren't true, or just steal content and figures verbatim from other sources.
    The worst part is that as a reviewer, you can't even just reject their shit, since most fields are so small that blinding doesn't actually work and they'll retaliate by rejecting your papers when they get selected as a reviewer. They also will steal your work during the review process, and threaten to reject papers that don't cite their work to inflate their numbers. I wish the journals would just tell them to frick off.

    >Jews good
    >Chinese bad
    noticing

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I consider everything published after 1945 as fake until proven otherwise (with video evidence) by definition.

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why is so much of scientific publishing fake?
    science homosexuals are extremely dishonest people, they lie about everything. the produce nothing of any value and constantly try to claim credit for everything good and important thats ever been made

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why is so much of scientific publishing fake?
    telling lies is how scientists make money
    >is any of it real?
    no

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A guy from the Maxwell family realized after WW2 that pride can be leveraged to control, bind and exploit people and syphon plenty of tax money

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

    People don't want to change the obviously malfunctioning, exploitative system because it gives them pride

    The only thing that moves science forward still is the genuine truth-seeking of a few types

    I somewhat think we could fix it by building a virtual house of solomon where everyone is an anon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Are there other articles on this early period of publishing? I thought it was all just a government hoodwink, like DoD. Fake business drummed up to fleece taxpayers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *