Plagiarism in science
22/5/23 20:56![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kiaa posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFake scientific papers are alarmingly common
But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia’s “publish or perish” culture
Intersting article suggesting scientists aren't the knowledge ubermenschen so many have put their faith in? Do you see this as an issue of concern? Should it color in any way our trust in science in general?
"When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found.
After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%.
“It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience.
It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.”"
The author notes several issues contributing to this dilemma:
- paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship.
- The “publish or perish” pressure that institutions put on scientists is also an obstacle
The "publish or perish" issue seems the most compelling to me; one can only imagine the pressure to publish; but it does beg questioning whether such pressure is appropriate for science, the objective seeking of truth by fabricating papers or plagiarizing other authors (a third themselves likely made up, if the findings are accurate) so they can keep their funding.
The paper mill issue seems to be mitigated primarily by the use of "spam filters" - which I thought interesting, this happening in the world of "science" - "scientists" spamming other scientists.
Of course, this is just in neuroscience and medicine; I'm sure there are no other fields of science similarly afflicted.
And it's also just one scientist's opinion, and that using just two indicators, one of which is the employ of "fake paper detectors" (who'da thunk those were needed in science, let alone a plurality of them?);
Nevertheless, we need to wait for his peers to review his work. Let's hope those reviews aren't fabricated or plagiarized too.
But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia’s “publish or perish” culture
Intersting article suggesting scientists aren't the knowledge ubermenschen so many have put their faith in? Do you see this as an issue of concern? Should it color in any way our trust in science in general?
"When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was “shocked” by what it found.
After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%.
“It is just too hard to believe” at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience.
It’s as if “somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic.”"
The author notes several issues contributing to this dilemma:
- paper mills—secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship.
- The “publish or perish” pressure that institutions put on scientists is also an obstacle
The "publish or perish" issue seems the most compelling to me; one can only imagine the pressure to publish; but it does beg questioning whether such pressure is appropriate for science, the objective seeking of truth by fabricating papers or plagiarizing other authors (a third themselves likely made up, if the findings are accurate) so they can keep their funding.
The paper mill issue seems to be mitigated primarily by the use of "spam filters" - which I thought interesting, this happening in the world of "science" - "scientists" spamming other scientists.
Of course, this is just in neuroscience and medicine; I'm sure there are no other fields of science similarly afflicted.
And it's also just one scientist's opinion, and that using just two indicators, one of which is the employ of "fake paper detectors" (who'da thunk those were needed in science, let alone a plurality of them?);
Nevertheless, we need to wait for his peers to review his work. Let's hope those reviews aren't fabricated or plagiarized too.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/23 18:36 (UTC)However, reputable scientific journals, through the peer review process, will always figure out the truth. The scientific method will always win, with time.