The thread title is: "How much research is fraudulent?" But, you are NOT reporting cases of fraud!! In fact, your post #2 is a not indicating that a paperwork process was not fully followed, because certain paper wasn't made available at the time in the process that it should have been. That doesn't even indicate that there was ANYTHING wrong with the paper! And, if you want to answer the OP question, you have to do more than give individual cases that are ACTUALLY FRAUDULENT!! You also have to indicate the pool from which the sample is drawn. When we measure water for lead, the key point is parts per million. Water is considered to be not polluted if it meets that standard. For science, the analog is how many parts (bad papers) per million papers. But, you aren't doing that. You are just showing a few papers that YOU don't like - ones that do NOT even qualify as fraud as your OP implies. This is NOT an acceptable analysis. It's no more than a hit piece from you against science.
Of course not. You are allowed to say anything you want. But, I'm here to point out that your post #2 did not indicate ANY KIND OF FRAUD, even though your OP title referred to fraud. I just want this topic to be addressed with the kind of scientific approach that you CLAIM to want, but are failing to exhibit in your own work.
No. Every one of the bullet pointed items were notices that a review was in process due to irregularities in the handling of "special issue" papers.
"While it’s not clear what exactly happened in this case, at least four journals have been scammed by rogue editors in the past two years."
But, that's not what you identified. And, you are still ignoring that any legitimate measure has to include both the problematic data points and the full size of the field from which they are drawn. That is what science would absolutely require. Yet you claim to judge science while you yourself fail to follow the most basic of requirements. Also, please note that these errors were picked up by the journal. It is part of what journals provide.
I think that's exactly what I identified, among other things. I'm not measuring anything or judging anything. I merely pose a question on a discussion forum.
You posed a question. You post and post and post. BUT, you NOT ONCE have attempted to address the question of the OP. The anti-science innuendo you work so hard to create is just not acceptable.
This won't help his career. KCL investigation finds misconduct in Lancet Neurology paper Marios Politis A Lancet journal has issued an expression of concern for a 2019 paper by a group in the United Kingdom whose work was found to have included fabricated data and other misconduct. The article, “Serotonergic pathology and disease burden in the premotor and motor phase of A53T α-synuclein parkinsonism: a cross-sectional study,” came from a team at King’s College London led by researchers at the school’s Neurodegeneration Imaging Group. The senior author on the paper, which appeared in Lancet Neurology, was Marios Politis, who has since left KCL for the University of Exeter. The study earned press coverage in The Guardian – “Parkinson’s disease ‘could be detected early on by brain changes‘” – and the BBC: “Early brain ‘signs of Parkinson’s’ found.” Here’s the expression of concern: Continue reading
I think we can call this guy a bad actor. More than 100 of an anesthesiologist’s papers retracted Showa University Hospital There’s a new entry on the Retraction Watch Leaderboard. And this one is also the fourth member of the Retraction Watch Century Club. An anesthesiology researcher in Japan is now up to 117 retractions – putting him third on our list of most-retracted authors. Hironobu Ueshima, formerly of Showa University Hospital in Tokyo, was found to have committed misconduct in 142 papers, according to a pair of investigations, one by his erstwhile institution and another by the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA). We first reported on the existence of the investigation in June 2020, some three months after Australian anesthesiologist and journal editor John Loadsman raised concerns with journals involved in the case. Continue reading
This is clearly one of the real strengths of science. With science, there is an organized method of watching. And, when bad practice is found, it gets eliminated. Facebook, twitter, youtube and others have nothing even close to what science has on this front, nor does radio/tv. So, we see Rogan having the largest listenership to his podcast of all podcasts. Yet, he CONSTANTLY projects false information to his millions of listeners, with NO pushback, NO concern by him, If Rogan were in science, he would be removed. The same with Kennedy and the others of his gang who project well known false information that is damaging to health of the citizens of America. There is NO QUESTION concerning where we need to be going for real information.
Ultimately the scientific process is self-correcting. But that does not happen without vigilance. Weekend reads: Weaponizing doubt; pharma’s lawsuit against journal dismissed; ‘misconstrued misinformation’ The week at Retraction Watch featured: Ivermectin papers slapped with expressions of concern More than 100 of an anesthesiologist’s papers retracted KCL investigation finds misconduct in Lancet Neurology paper Philadelphia-area lung researcher up to six retractions Biotech’s ‘cell squeezing’ technology paper earns expression of concern Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 211. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, LibKey, Papers, and Zotero. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? Here’s what was happening elsewhere (some of these items may be paywalled, metered access, or require free registration to read): Continue reading
The fraud fighters are getting new weapons. How to find evidence of paper mills using peer review comments Adam Day Finding papers produced by paper mills has become a major headache for many of the world’s largest publishers over the past year, and they’re largely playing catch-up since sleuths began identifying them a few years ago. But there may be a new way: Earlier this month, Adam Day, a data scientist at SAGE Publishing, posted a preprint on arXiv that used a variety of methods to search for duplication in peer review comments, based on the likelihood that paper mills “create fake referee accounts and use them to submit fake peer-review reports.” We asked Day several questions about the approach. Retraction Watch (RW): Tell us a bit about the methods you used. Continue reading
Statins show that corps can mislead.... sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes a mix thinking lowering cholesterol was a good thing, was unknowingly (at first) making the statistics look like it helped, that was knowingly
While the numbers may have been fudged later, early work showed a higher death rate for those on statins. They interfered with my exercise, so between the two, I decided against using them. Frankly, there is a big pharma, and they have done nasty things. But people put their physicians in a tough position. I have a friend that is dying, he's 30 years younger then me, and he didn't listen to me or his Doc. Don't think I am dismissing your concerns. Drug ads should be criminal. It's ironic that we have gone psycho going after recreational drugs, which makes that problem worse. While letting Big Pharma get away with too much. We need more enforcement, and prob some new laws to boot. In any case, the human body was not designed to be ignored. The best medicine there is, is exercise. My ebike had a spring tuneup. I'm going to get it today.
now that we know your cholesterol scores are dependent on what you ate during the previous 3 days, the tests are meaningless anyways but to add to that, people with higher cholesterol seem to live longer by newer studies cholesterol was like the fire trucks at the fire, not the cause of the issues "The best medicine there is, is exercise." and proper diet, not the high carb standard American diet
I'm a 25-year (and counting) statin user. Here's the Mayo Clinic view. Statins: Are these cholesterol-lowering drugs right for you? https://www.mayoclinic.org › statins › art-20045772 Lowering cholesterol isn't the only benefit associated with statins. These medications have also been linked to a lower risk of heart disease and stroke. These ...
have they though? and is lowering cholesterol actually a benefit? new studies are calling this into doubt
which is fine, not telling you to otherwise, that is between you and your doctor, but I will not be taking Statins