Hmm. So is it actually the number of fraudullent papers that's up, or is it the number of frauds that get caught?
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
5 points (85.7% liked)
Technology
58743 readers
4255 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Science and technology are developed to serve hegemony, not humanity, not even the researchers themselves.
These workers are just trying to survive under a brutal capitalist regime like anybody else.
good! the number of unrecorded instances is shrinking
Ironically, it will only get worse from journals and publishers cutting deals with LLM companies.
There are two kinds of people, the kind who'll read this and think, "This is science working", and others who'll think "Well, you can't trust science".
No there are three. You missed the guy grumbling in the corner about academia being in shambles (in the US at least)
I’m optimistic. I think we’re at the beginning of the self-correction stage of the reproducibility crisis.
It’s not the end. It’s not even the beginning of the end. But it could very well be the end of the beginning.
Something about potential wide scale fraud came out recently about a prominent Alzheimer's researcher. This article covers it quite well: https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion
It's grim, especially when considering the real human cost that fraud in biomedical research has. Despite this, like you, I am also optimistic. This article outlines some of how the initial concerns about this researcher was raised, and how the analysis of his work was done. A lot of it seems pretty unorthodox. For example, one of the people who contributed to this work was a "non-scientist" forensic image expert, who goes by the username Cheshire on the forum PubPeer (his real name is known and mentioned in the article, but I can't remember it).
but I can't remember it
nice one! ;D
How many of them had pharmaceutical money behind them, I wonder.