19 science journals shutting down and over 11,300 papers being retracted due to academic fraud

[Al-O-Meter]

Researchers found that in the 5 year period between Feb 2020 and Feb 2024, roughly 1 scientific paper out of every 5 was fraudulent.

[2404.01268] Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers

Journals owned by 217-year-old Wiley Science Publishing were among those to be shown publishing supposed “peer reviewed” fraud. To their credit, Wiley started their own investigation and discovered the researchers were correct. They found over 11,000 examples of obvious fraud with some journals being so rife with academic fraud that it wasn’t possible to save the journal.

SCIENCE CLOWNS: Wiley shuts down over 11,000 fraudulent “peer-reviewed” papers that they previously published as cutting-edge science

John Wiley and Sons, a major academic publisher, is currently retracting more than 11,300 “peer-reviewed” science papers that they had previously published. These papers were once regarded as cutting-edge science and were cited numerous times by other academic researchers. Now these scientific...

gnews.org

AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing

One percent of scientific articles published in 2023 showed signs of generative AI’s potential involvement, according to a recent analysis

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[str8line]

OMG, we need to stop trusting science! But what should we trust? God?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

OMG, we need to stop trusting science! But what should we trust? God?

I don't think not trusting science is the correct answer, but having a healthy skepticism for scientists and the peer review process is certainly warranted.

 

[str8line]

I don't think not trusting science is the correct answer, but having a healthy skepticism for scientists and the peer review process is certainly warranted.

What constitutes a healthy skepticism? I'll reserve a healthy skepticism for people like you and things other than science.

 

[Red]

I don't think not trusting science is the correct answer, but having a healthy skepticism for scientists and the peer review process is certainly warranted.

Been a big problem for quite awhile. A very recent archaeological paper involving the claim that a very early archaeological site in Maryland changes the narrative on how early humans entered the Americas has other archaeologists criticizing, because the author stated he skipped the peer review process, because it’s flawed. His findings have been widely covered in the popular press, because of their “sensational” nature. Which will always upset a “dispassionate researcher”. The fact is, IMHO opinion, his findings are indeed highly questionable, and deserve criticism, but it’s been interesting to follow the criticism that he did not follow the “rules” regarding publishing new research via peer review…..Don’t have the answers, but it’s a huge problem for years now….

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Been a big problem for quite awhile. A very recent archaeological paper involving the claim that a very early archaeological site in Maryland changes the narrative on how early humans entered the Americas has other archaeologists criticizing, because the author stated he skipped the peer review process, because it’s flawed. His findings have been widely covered in the popular press, because of their “sensational” nature. Which will always upset a “dispassionate researcher”. The fact is, IMHO opinion, his findings are indeed highly questionable, and deserve criticism, but it’s been interesting to follow the criticism that he did not follow the “rules” regarding publishing new research via peer review…..Don’t have the answers, but it’s a huge problem for years now….

I remember that whole brouhaha.

There was a recent video from a PhD physicist I've been following where she talks about how academia actually works, how it is all about generating revenue, and how it leads to what we're seeing today.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8

 

[Red]

There is no easy fix to peer review but paying... | F1000Research

Read the original article in full on F1000Research: There is no easy fix to peer review but paying referees and regulating the number of submissions might help

f1000research.com

Abstract​

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of ‘publish or perish’. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.