Up to 1 in 7 research papers fabricated?

[RonO]

https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril

A researcher wanted to do a meta review evaluation of his research
interest and came up with hundreds of papers when he only expected
around 60. Most of them were likely fabricated from paper mills. This
sounds pretty sad.

The ID perps almost never publish their junk in real journals, but it
sounds like there are a lot of journals out there that would be happy to
publish the IDiotic junk.

Ron Okimoto

[erik simpson]

Post by RonO
https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril
A researcher wanted to do a meta review evaluation of his research
interest and came up with hundreds of papers when he only expected
around 60.  Most of them were likely fabricated from paper mills.  This
sounds pretty sad.
The ID perps almost never publish their junk in real journals, but it
sounds like there are a lot of journals out there that would be happy to
publish the IDiotic junk.
Ron Okimoto

Follow the money. All the examples are in medicine or psychology.
Someone should be policing this stuff, but who? Needless to say, the
government shouldn't be involved. Perhaps a consortium of medical
journal editors? (Real journals, of course.)

[John Harshman]

Post by RonO
https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril
A researcher wanted to do a meta review evaluation of his research
interest and came up with hundreds of papers when he only expected
around 60.  Most of them were likely fabricated from paper mills.
This sounds pretty sad.
The ID perps almost never publish their junk in real journals, but it
sounds like there are a lot of journals out there that would be happy
to publish the IDiotic junk.
Ron Okimoto

Follow the money.  All the examples are in medicine or psychology.
Someone should be policing this stuff, but who?  Needless to say, the
government shouldn't be involved.  Perhaps a consortium of medical
journal editors? (Real journals, of course.)

I'd like to see an analysis of what journals the fakes were in. But it's
not all medicine. Just today a journal I follow, Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution, retracted a published paper upon discovering that it
contained extensive plagiarism. And that's the leading journal in the field.

[erik simpson]

Post by John Harshman

Post by RonO
https://www.science.org/content/article/systematic-reviews-aim-extract-broad-conclusions-many-studies-are-peril
A researcher wanted to do a meta review evaluation of his research
interest and came up with hundreds of papers when he only expected
around 60.  Most of them were likely fabricated from paper mills.
This sounds pretty sad.
The ID perps almost never publish their junk in real journals, but it
sounds like there are a lot of journals out there that would be happy
to publish the IDiotic junk.
Ron Okimoto

Follow the money.  All the examples are in medicine or psychology.
Someone should be policing this stuff, but who?  Needless to say, the
government shouldn't be involved.  Perhaps a consortium of medical
journal editors? (Real journals, of course.)

I'd like to see an analysis of what journals the fakes were in. But it's
not all medicine. Just today a journal I follow, Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution, retracted a published paper upon discovering that it
contained extensive plagiarism. And that's the leading journal in the field.

Even physics isn't immune from fakery, but it's much rarer. The fakes
are also more readily found out.