Not so much like this in natural science.
Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
71–80 of 105 posts
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#72[flagged]
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment was assuming you’re the average person. I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should. But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree? Somewhat related anecdote: I’m reminded of a good friend who is preeminent in their field. No one would know them outside of their area of expertise, but anyone within that area of expertise (or…
I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should. I've been on HN nearly 14 years. A fair number of people know something about me, though certainly not everyone. But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree? That's a personal attack, which is a violation of HN rules. Your entire comment is about me and a justification for dismissing me an…
I can’t even imagine giving so much credence to every conspiracy theory or supposed breakthrough that only appears on YouTube that I spend time watching everything. There are only so many hours in the day, time is precious, and the onus is on the person making the claim to support them, not the other way around. It’s like someone telling me to watch everything on YouTube about copper bracelets taking bad energy and putting the onus on me to disprove it, but that’s not how science works.
I will share though that I have heuristics that help me gut check new claims. None of them are infallible but they can give a good indication that saves me watching every layperson video making outrageous claims. Those heuristics include things like getting published in major journals, getting peer reviewed, having large and well thought out studies controlling for confounding variables, having leaders in a field support or coauthor the studies, and more. There are also heuristics in the opposite way, which I won’t get into, but suffice to say that the position of “everyone thinks I’m a ‘nutter’ but this one thing happened to me in one case and it has never been repeated but I believe it and the establishment/BIG GENETICS is trying to keep the research under wraps but here’s a video you can watch that proves everything” is not only not compelling to me, but in fact ticks a lot of the anti heuristic boxes. ;)
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what's funny? Even if the numbers are hot garbage, they proved the point about how easy it is to publish fake science papers, since it got published. Kinda similar to those researchers years back who proved how easy it was to go into certain social science journals as long as you copied their ideology.
Well, there is a difference between "fake science" and "tried to do correct science but ending being wrong". If the second is "fake science", then basically all that Newton has ever produced is "fake science". For the social science journals bit, are you thinking of the "grievance studies affair": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair ? Ironically, this study has generated a lot of "fake news" on the…
A reviewer should have seen that massive red flag
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#75Flagged for being complete bull pucky.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#76The researchers in this paper use an astonishingly biased "fake paper detector", requiring only two conditions to be met for any paper to be considered "fake": 1. Use a non-institutional email address, or have a hospital affiliation, 2. Have no international co-authors. And they acknowledge 86% sensitivity and 44% specificity. It's a coin-toss which biases massively against research from outside the US and Western Eu…
Why? Why can't scientists from outside the US and Western Europe seek international co-authors, like everyone else?
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#77The researchers in this paper use an astonishingly biased "fake paper detector", requiring only two conditions to be met for any paper to be considered "fake": 1. Use a non-institutional email address, or have a hospital affiliation, 2. Have no international co-authors. And they acknowledge 86% sensitivity and 44% specificity. It's a coin-toss which biases massively against research from outside the US and Western Eu…
Why? Why can't scientists from outside the US and Western Europe seek international co-authors, like everyone else?
Why don't you consider having to do that a bias against them?
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know you or your reputation at all and I think it’s unfair to assume some random HN poster like me should. I've been on HN nearly 14 years. A fair number of people know something about me, though certainly not everyone. But if most of the world thinks that, who am I to disagree? That's a personal attack, which is a violation of HN rules. Your entire comment is about me and a justification for dismissing me an…
I can’t even imagine giving so much credence to every conspiracy theory or supposed breakthrough that only appears on YouTube that I spend time watching everything. There are only so many hours in the day, time is precious, and the onus is on the person making the claim to support them, not the other way around. It’s like someone telling me to watch everything on YouTube about copper bracelets taking bad energy and p…
That's not what's going on here.
You are dismissing a specific source out of hand, apparently without so much as clicking the link provided since he's not a lay person, he's a scientist with a degree in biology.
You aren't required to check out anything at all, but your ugly dismissal without bothering to check the source isn't any kind of meaningful rebuttal of anything.
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#79Sadly, this doesn't even include the studies with authors who produce poor experiments and theories, or go out of their way to prove their results; effectively, generating additional scientific publication waste we have to sift through to find genuine material, or worse off, that people then use to create policies impacting large populations that are doomed to fail in the long-run. The image this creates for me, is b…
In essence, there's more than enough to deal with regarding bad science that was done in good faith. There have got to be better ways to filter out bad science offered in bad faith.
An author and journal rating services evaluating merits across time. While poor scientists become evident to competing authors in their respective fields, a policymaker or journalist may not take the time to figure out if the results are meritable or a background of the authors and utilize the results to support their position. In a perfect world, these authors should be filtered during the "peer review" process, but the process seems... corrupted?
Re: Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common
#80A Chatbot could create fake scientific papers, right?