How much research is fraudulent?

Discussion in 'Science' started by Jack Hays, Jul 11, 2021.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But, you weren't limiting to that.

    And, if you want to prove that science is a fraudulent enterprise as your OP implies, continue dividing your pathetic case count by 10 million.

    Also, remember what I've pointed out to you in the past. Single papers are NOT treated by science as the final word on any topic. We see that constantly in the world of health, climate, etc., where single papers are NOT ACCEPTED as the final word.

    That is, another defense against misinformation is the way that science is consumed by people versed in consuming science.

    Obviously, this is an important topic, because of the very nature of science (in that hypotheses can not be proven true), because of the opportunity for statistical and process errors, and because humans are humans.

    But, YOU are touting the idea that science is fraudulent.

    That is not demonstrated, regardless of how hard you try. And, it is a HUGE disservice.
     
  2. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. I have never claimed science is fraudulent. I claim, and can document, that there are fraudulent practitioners in science. Exposing them is how we defend science.
     
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are making NO attempt to defend science in any way.

    You are working hard to make science look bad by presenting a tiny number of cases as fraud - even when they aren't fraud.

    NOT ONCE have you show the results of your findings, divided by the number of papers published or preprinted.

    I you wanted to show a measure of how good or bad science is, you would DO THE DIVIDE.
     
  4. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but that's irrelevant since I have made no claim about "how good or bad science is." Like it says on the Retraction Watch home page their work is: "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process."
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2022
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  6. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but I don't have to do any of that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2022
  7. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  8. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually, post #2 indeed pointed to fraud in some cases.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  10. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "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."
     
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2022
  12. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  14. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry you feel that way, but you're wrong.
     
  15. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More interesting episodes:
    Weekend reads: Academic fraud factories; zombie science; ‘Silicon Valley’s new obsession’
    [​IMG]


    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 207. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, 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
     
  16. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The variety of human behavior seems nearly infinite.
    Weekend reads: Academia with and without peer review; bogus journals; rector found guilty of misconduct
    [​IMG]


    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 208. There are now more than 32,000 retractions in our database — which now powers retraction alerts in EndNote, 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
     
  17. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is this week's honor roll.
    Weekend reads: ‘Death threats, ghost researchers and sock puppets’; high levels of duplication in Russian science; DNA barcoding fraud?
    [​IMG]

    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 209. 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
     
  18. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This won't help his career.
    KCL investigation finds misconduct in Lancet Neurology paper
    [​IMG]
    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
     
  19. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think we can call this guy a bad actor.
    More than 100 of an anesthesiologist’s papers retracted
    [​IMG]
    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
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    45,897
    Likes Received:
    12,150
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.
     
  21. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, and . . . ?
     
  22. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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’
    [​IMG]

    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    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
     
  23. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The struggle continues.
    Weekend reads: Paying for publication?; deeper looks at citation practices; preprints and retractions
    [​IMG]


    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    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
     
  24. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The fraud fighters are getting new weapons.
    How to find evidence of paper mills using peer review comments
    [​IMG]
    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
     
  25. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    9,652
    Likes Received:
    4,335
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The struggle continues.
    Weekend reads: ‘Published crap;’ randomized grant awards; ‘Problems in Science Publishing’
    [​IMG]

    The week at Retraction Watch featured:

    Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up to 213. 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
     

Share This Page