FWIS3

.... is suspicious?

At a time where facts don't matter and science denial is the world's #1 pastime, this is not exactly the kind of news we need.

Falsified data in science is nothing new (but I think this is certainly a new twist on the subject). Scientists are above all else human. The thing is, some fields have historically had a bit more of falsified data that swings a certain way because of societal implications- I remember for example a Dutch prof got suspended around when I first moved there and he was famous for churning out papers on how meat eaters are more selfish than vegetarians (link). I don't think this is anything new, unfortunately, just someone who knows the system of academic publishing who knows how to exploit it. I could put forward a fake paper myself by now under an alias, and no one would likely notice.

(Plus, um, the article says several of these pieces were double blind reviewed, aka the referee didn't see the name of the people and vice versa. So I'm not surprised no one noticed the names were fake. Editors are despite the name's implications actually unpaid researchers in a field, and IMO a lot of issues with academic publishing comes from getting what you pay for with editors who DNGAF about what referees are doing, but that's another topic.)

I guess my point is while these pieces are ridiculous, science is big enough that I don't feel that this really reflects on what I do (but then, most astro research does not have societal implications). I think scientific misconduct, which a hoax is, certainly affects my field too, and probably at higher levels than expected. But yeah, unfortunately in today's culture I'm sure that nuance won't matter much.

Edit: after thinking about it further, I really would have loved if they'd submitted fake articles showing the opposite politically. It would have been interesting in the sense of seeing if the reviewers/journals actually just DNGAF in general or about the specific topics (as there are plenty of predatory journals out there that are happy to publish anything if you pay them). But I guess that wouldn't be as interesting if you have a message in the first place.

Scientists publishing bogus papers? I am shocked! Shocked I say!






















Yes, yes, my winnings. Thank you.

Here is a link to the project itself where the creators explain their motivation for doing this.

Hell! how did I miss this one?

Amazing. 20 years after Social Text got caught with their pants down by Alan Sokal, Social Science journals still trip on the same stone. While this group's aim is more oriented towards politically oriented bias than Sokal's (and NO, it's not criticism, just stating a fact), the main problem remains the same. Lack of critical thinking in places where THAT should be paramount.

While this OUGHT to occur much less in Natural Sciences. (Not because Scientists are "better" or more intelligent, just because Natural Phenomena behave the same, regardless of one's prejudices and perceptions) One wonders how this continues to play out in politically charged, hard to understand topics such as Climate Change (which IIRC happened about 10 years ago).

Rommie wrote:Edit: after thinking about it further, I really would have loved if they'd submitted fake articles showing the opposite politically. It would have been interesting in the sense of seeing if the reviewers/journals actually just DNGAF in general or about the specific topics (as there are plenty of predatory journals out there that are happy to publish anything if you pay them). But I guess that wouldn't be as interesting if you have a message in the first place.

While for the most part I believe in most scientific institutions, journals, practices, I don't think its particularly controversial to say there is a net left bias therein. I went to university once. Damned hippies.

I think the Mein Kampf example was particularly telling. There aren't too many ways you could get away with that. At least, that is what I believe to be true.

Someone should do some Science on it.