What I eventually found was a Review Mill, a set of 85 very similar review reports in 23 journals published by MDPI (Agronomy, Antibiotics, Applied Sciences, Atoms, Biomimetics, Biomolecules, Cancers, Catalysts, Chemistry, Coatings, Electronics, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, Journal of Clinical Medicine, Journal of Personalized Medicine, Materials, Metals, Molecules, Nutrients, Pathogens, Polymers, Prothesis, Sensors and Water) from August 2022 to October 2023, most of the time with coercive citation, that is, asking authors to “cite recently published articles” which were always co-authored by one or more reviewers of the Review Mill.
Dirnagl/LJ hat die Antwort
Besteht die Lösung des Problems also darin, Wissenschaftsbetrug härter zu sanktionieren? Schaden würde das sicher nicht. Schließlich kann man die Fälle, in denen bislang Strafen verhängt wurden, an einer Hand abzählen. Wissenschaftsbetrug wird also nicht nur selten aufgedeckt, sondern noch seltener geahndet.
Müssen wir mehr gute wissenschaftliche Praxis lehren und trainieren? Auch das ist eine gute Idee, aber sehr viel nützen wird es wohl nicht. …
Brauchen wir vielleicht eine Wissenschaftspolizei, die unangekündigte Kontrollen von Western Blots und Festplatten in Laboren durchführt? Ganz sicher nicht! Moderne Wissenschaft ist viel zu komplex …
Ein viel naheliegender Ansatz zur Abhilfe ist es, sich dem Kern des Problems anzunehmen und das toxische Karriere- und Bewertungssystem zu reformieren – also Forscher nicht auf Basis fragwürdiger Metriken, sondern mit Fokus auf Forschungsqualität, Inhalte und dem tatsächlichen wissenschaftlichen oder gesellschaftlichen Impact zu beurteilen.
created a fake researcher (Marco Alberto Pantani-Contador — a reference to two infamous cyclists, Marco Pantani and Alberto Contador, each of whom was accused of blood doping). Copying and pasting text from a website, adding a few figures and graphs and lots and lots of self-citations … created six fake documents, translated them into English using Google Translate, and uploaded them to a new webpage under their university’s domain. It was a process, the authors explain, that took less than half a day’s work.
Richard Smith 3:58 “People who behave fraudently tend to behave fraudently in all aspects of their live”
8:05 “Universities have no interest to discover fraud” 10:42 “Journals don’t have the legal standing” 10:58 “we need some kind of national bodies”
those 4Rs are now suggested as standard review criteria – definitely a great proposal as
even if the experiment can be reproduced, replication is often an issue
It is a bit annoying. If you google for science delusion, you are only referred to Sheldrake. But this is not what I wanted, I was more interested in mad scientists. Not Frankenstein, not Moreau not Dr. Faustus not any literary character, some more real life figures. Also not Venter. But here comes something interesting
In 1951, entomologist Jay Traver published in the Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington [Traver, J. (1951). Unusual scalp dermatitis in humans caused by the mite, dermatophagoides (Acarina, epidermoptidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 53(1), 1-25.] her personal experiences with a mite infestation of her scalp that resisted all treatment and was undetectable to anyone other than herself. Traver is recognized as having suffered from Delusory Parasitosis: her paper shows her to be a textbook case of the condition. The Traver paper is unique in the scientific literature in that its conclusions may be based on data that was unconsciously fabricated by the author’s mind.
The author ( Matan Shelomi, Mad Scientist: The Unique Case of a Published Delusion Matan Shelomi, Sci Eng Ethics (2013) 19:381-388) believes that a possible retraction of the 1951 paper raises the issue of discrimination against the mentally ill – others may consider this as delusionary correctness.
A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%) …fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.
So, fraud is the most frequent cause – and it usually does not come isolated Continue reading The true reason for retractions?
just a link today Continue reading The psychology behind exaggerated research
What is needed, instead, is a system of publication that is more meritocratic in its evaluation of performance and productivity in the sciences. It should expand the record of a scientific study past an individual paper, including additional material such as worthy blog posts about the results, media coverage and the number of times that the paper has been downloaded.
… or your gel scans with fingerprints seem to be the only secure way to prevent later photoshopping. Engadget has all the details of a new Canon patent, yea, yea.