Fake studies in academic journals may be more common than previously thought

Fake studies in academic journals may be more common than previously thought

While I have similar reservations about the NPR as a 'journalistic" source... I make an exception here because it is a transcript of an interview (I believe the audio is available) about a subject which is of interest to me.

I offer some disclosure here... I once served (many eons ago) in the Office of Federal Grants Management of a major research university (aren't they all nowadays?) So I have some sensitivity to the state of "research" as an 'enterprise of commerce.' I will offer few reactions in that regard as the subject of this OP is simple:

Published research is now a 'corrupted collection' of documents.

The interview participants: NPR's Ayesha Rascoe and neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel, a German psychologist who heads the Institute of Medical Psychology at the Otto-von-Guericke-University Magdeburg.

NPR's Ayesha Rascoe speaks with neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel about his study estimating that more medical papers may be made up or plagiarized than previously thought.

The conversation can best be summarized, in my opinion, as a kind of revelation. As it would appear from what Professor Sabel asserts, while it was always a certainty that some published research was in fact "fake" - as in fraudulently presented, not factual, ... made up data, non-existent 'authorship,' no actual research done... etc. This reality was a 'given' in the world of those who regularly access and review research materials published into the scientific record. But apparently, there's more... a lot more... than anyone seemed to grasp.

Here's an except from the interview:

RASCOE: So what is going on here? Like, why are all these fake papers ending up in academic journals? Like, how does that happen?

SABEL: Scientists are often judged by the number of papers they publish, and that is quite common practice everywhere around the world. And all this pressure creates anxiety and fear to not being promoted, to lose the job and so on. And so the best way to solve that, given they have no capacity to do the research, is, as if you're buying a T-shirt in the shop, you can buy a paper for it to be published in the scientific journal.

RASCOE: So how does that work? These are papers, like, with fake data, or these are papers that other people have done research for and then someone else is buying them, or is it all just completely fabricated?

SABEL: Well, all of the above. There is quite a variety in the kaleidoscope of ways of faking. You can now go online, and you can see a title advertised, sign up here. Pay this and that much for it. There are papers that have fake photos. They have fake text. I presume many are automatically produced by artificial intelligence. And there are agencies who are specializing in this business, which creates a lot of junk in the scientific literature at a scope that is just unbelievable.

Bear in mind that what follows is my opinion...

We can rest assured that "fake" research has monetary motivation... A substantial document recounting the thesis and experimental results behind it pursuit must be robust and conform to what "research" in the appropriate field look like. Someone is getting compensated for its creation... Science journal editors such as Prof. Sabel must be fooled at first glance that this material offered for publication is worthy and valid upon it's surface. So it takes some understanding of the process and product to mimic a research effort.

One might think this would narrow down the potential "who" is perpetrating this cumulative poisoning of the well of scientific research. I haven't heard of anything in that regard though, right now the conversation is restricted to the existence of fake research, not who is making it.

But my angle here is a bit more conspiratorial... of course, because what we can also be certain of is that 'fake' research can also be motivated by ideology, politics, and even faith. Fake research can be made for the purposes of "convincing" and 'serving narratives' and maybe even more subtle motivations.

Here at ATS we often find ourselves bombarded by "research" passed off as some manner of "authoritative" and we are often willing to accept that possibility because up until this conversation at least, we may have thought that "If it's published it has to have been vetted."

That is apparently ill-advised. And often one can see the most damage when we observe how many times that research has been cited as contributory to other research, i.e. how far has the poison spread.

As an example I offer this noteworthy example in Retraction Watch - although I feel obliged to mention that is is a bit of a rabbit hole... if you care at all about 'truth' as a principle - it's bound to be a bit of a teeth grinding exercise.

I will now remind myself that the research I see being cited must never be simply accepted... especially if it is in defense of something I maintain. But I dare say some of us are in love with calling upon 'research' as some kind of weapon of truth... turns out that nothing is ever that easy.

Thanks for reading the links!

Well it helps to research the journal too as not all journals are created equal; there is a hierarchy there of which some are top shelf and some which are somewhat suspect.

I also research the doctor/professor/whomever is doing the study and I look for peer reviews, as well as other papers by the same person to get a quick history or feel for their theory or science or where they seem to be going with their theories.

But thanks for the warning because I've noticed younger researchers are lacking something in their papers, something I can't quite put my finger on, yet.

ETA:

Here's an interesting grievance studies affair for everyone's perusal.

en.wikipedia.org...

It seems to me that scientific papers within the humanities or liberal arts journals, without any concrete science (if you can call a control group real science) are the most likely to accept hoax papers.

Could be red herring reporting to make people think it's isolated and never going to happen again 😎

Some of us are not surprised by this in the least. One thing that needs to be added to the reason it is occurring is the ego of scientists. Being proven wrong is a serious blow to the egos of some fairly intelligent people, but that same ego also has a difficult time learning that someone is smarter. What lengths would they go to keep up their reputation as the "smartest person on a given topic"? Without that distinction the grant money dries up and you lose the respect from your peers.

a reply to: Maxmars

Seems like our convo about questioning everything, has a link to this thread, eh ?

When that recent binned thread, asking how to improuve ATS™ was running, many there asked for a return to debates that used Published™ Science™ as some kind of supposed gauge of " Truth™. "

Was SMH, that so many smart folks, still believe in all of this Academic™ BS™.

We live in a kind of post-truth era, where we can't trust or believe anything, other than direct human experience.
( And even there ... )

There have been posts and threads before, about how much of Academia™ is Fake™, how the so-called " Scientific-Journals™ " are nothing more than publishing houses with Agendas™, and we all know that the Agenda™ always takes precedence.

But here is another angle : one " Retracted™ " paper is Dr. Wakefield's study, where he found a link between Quackzines™ and autism.

That paper wasn't Retracted™ because it was wrong.
It was Retracted™ to protect the Golden-Goose™//Sacred-Cow™, of the Medical-Mafia™.

We can not sit here in our comfy chairs, and Prove™ what is right or wrong, using material that is questionable.

Are we then left with nothing but opinions and beliefs, other than our in-the-now human experience ?

a reply to: hangedman13

I've seen scientists attack each other on social media, first arguing their theories then it devolving into bashing.

Maybe the trick is to look for scientific papers where a team of scientists with different disciplines have worked together to work out a theory

ETA:

What is empirical data, how do we here on ATS define that?

For me an example of empirical data would be neurological CT scans. Would you argue with your doctor on the validity of a CT scan?

How do we make sense of control group studies? Is double blind enough?

a reply to: Maxmars

Lowering of standards and increase in identity-weighted scholastic standards has allowed industry to simply sponsor people coming up through academia for cheap. Skill and intelligence are longer is a recruitment goal for industry adjacent academics. Industry wants people that don't pay too much attention and they want them teaching the next generation how to do the same.

They spend a bunch of money getting a half-baked "academic" through the last half of schooling that nobody seems to fail, then get them placed where they want them, then get them going as a straw author, then throw a bunch of industry sponsored awards at them. You suddenly have every "prize-winning" expert essentially pushing your corporate agenda.

There were highly irregular practices during COVID and, given the extent of those ethical violations, I no longer take any study as accurate until I've vetted the information myself. There were backroom deals with industry lobbyists for medical providers too. Very dirty business. Up until the FOIA and court cases started dropping virtually every single study led back to Fauci, his NGO cronies, or a pharmaceutical company. Even mask company profiteers got in on lobbying for mandates.

I don't see a remedy. Public health, science, and medicine, have all lost credibility in the eyes of the public. They deserve it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Thank you for sharing the link to that 'event' in science history. It speaks to the hopeful message that not everyone one is willing to be fooled even if it serves some agenda.

Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose, took a serious professional stance in pursuing this project "Grievance studies affair" which while criticized by some as egregiously dishonest, was exactly what the scientific community itself needed to properly acknowledge in the first place... and seemed to be actively avoiding.

Let's hope that represents something that will become a common concern among those scientist who are most vulnerable to bias... I think this topic is more deserving of attention that the current fad of 'diversity,' 'inclusion,' and 'equity' ... which seems to be the new "eye candy" for funding sources.

a reply to: Maxmars

Actually, rather common:

Like Mann's fake, debunked hockey stick climate chart.

Like the fake "hide the decline" climate papers around the scandal of Phil Jones at University of East Anglia

Like the 75 years the FDA wanted to release the Pfizer fake covid vaccine data.

One third of scientific papers may be fraudulent
www.semafor.com...

Color me surprised, i'm not. Let's see now Academia is off kilter (not Surprised) Oh noe's what will we do? Same as the latest Government DOJ, FBI corruption and cover-up's.

How do we even tell what side is up anymore? When will this go from a mass conspiracy to mass unrest or revolt?

To any debaters (real high school debate clubbers) Do you deny the fact that the debate club has died? Do you realize you are losing the future? Does anyone even realize what's at stake, here and now?

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Maxmars

Seems like our convo about questioning everything, has a link to this thread, eh ?

Ah yes, Vasa Croe's excellent question Have you ever really questioned anything? led me into a whirlwind of thought... and when I ran across this it seemed relevant.

Many people can be excused for thinking we should "return to debates that used published science as a gauge of truth." For many generations the scientific community has held to standards that did not rely on 'public [read political] opinion' to measure.

We live in a kind of post-truth era, where we can't trust or believe anything, other than direct human experience.
( And even there ... )

And we have another 'problem' - the obverse of the matter... some research is factual... discounting it all as BS would be reckless and might lead to tragic setbacks, and a stifling of progress.

But here is another angle : one " Retracted™ " paper is Dr. Wakefield's study, where he found a link between Quackzines™ and autism.

That paper wasn't Retracted™ because it was wrong.
It was Retracted™ to protect the Golden-Goose™//Sacred-Cow™, of the Medical-Mafia™.

A very good point. Not all retractions are benign. Yet another wrinkle in the issue of retractions.

We can not sit here in our comfy chairs, and Prove™ what is right or wrong, using material that is questionable.

We're pretty much on the same page except in that statement. I don't believe that 'scientific discovery' or development is exclusive to the realm of accredited, qualified, certified specialists. We can do a lot more than any of the specialists might care to admit, especially in the realm of analysis... Comfy chairs or not. But that is a minor point in a larger agreement...

And you are right... limit yourself exclusively to their input and you risk being misled, as they might have been all along. It doesn't really matter if they were agenda biased, misled by those that 'inform them,' or simply because they're too lazy to actually do the work to confirm something that they choose to agree with.

I was interviewing a Yale professor and he alleged that at least 50% of all peer-reviewed research is totally wrong. If that can slip through, imagine how easy it is for purposefully manipulated data to get through

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Maxmars

Lowering of standards and increase in identity-weighted scholastic standards has allowed industry to simply sponsor people coming up through academia for cheap. Skill and intelligence are longer is a recruitment goal for industry adjacent academics. Industry wants people that don't pay too much attention and they want them teaching the next generation how to do the same.

They spend a bunch of money getting a half-baked "academic" through the last half of schooling that nobody seems to fail, then get them placed where they want them, then get them going as a straw author, then throw a bunch of industry sponsored awards at them. You suddenly have every "prize-winning" expert essentially pushing your corporate agenda.

Well, how can I argue with that?

It was the beginning of that, when I was close to that world. I can't say I was smart enough to see where it was going... but I did in fact see it was going somewhere not good. Hence my departure from that world long ago.

There's nothing quite like attempting to converse with a highly-acclaimed and prominent research "personality" who seems utterly lost int discussions about the field of his (or her) specialty. It's the little things you know, like a casual question about new discoveries or research... met with blank stares or befuddled responses. You can find them everywhere, even in the hard sciences... I'll never forget the reference to "P-values as related to statistical 'certainty" I made to one scientist researching cancer... "What values?" ... I knew then. I'm a layman, and I know why it matters... he, a published researcher appeared to never had heard of such a thing.

There were highly irregular practices during COVID and, given the extent of those ethical violations, I no longer take any study as accurate until I've vetted the information myself.

Therein lies my problem... some of the important stuff is way beyond my ability to adequately evaluate. The math, the presentation, the referential material... it just demands the eye of a specialist. Some of the more consequential stuff (in my opinion) can only be rightly evaluated by other scholars (assuming their not store-bought themselves.)

If our 'human' world were ethically balanced we might be able to fix this problem with some judicious oversight... but it is those setting goals and standards who are clearly as much of the problem as those who are just trying to survive by deceit.

And don't even get me started on those who are trying to get richer and richer... there's a special place in my imaginary hell for them...

I have a study that says the studies are fake.

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: Maxmars

Actually, rather common:

Like Mann's fake, debunked hockey stick climate chart.

Like the fake "hide the decline" climate papers around the scandal of Phil Jones at University of East Anglia

Like the 75 years the FDA wanted to release the Pfizer fake covid vaccine data.

I found the "Hockey Stick" episode sheer lunacy! The actual documentation refuted what it was represented as. And global authorities just said "Whelp! Okey Dokey!" ... not one scientist seemed to object by simply saying "That's not what it says!" when that's all it would have taken to dispel the mythological existential terror... all to enable a new carbon economy to exploit... sad, sad, sad.

I always suspected they knew that ploy wasn't going to have a long shelf-life. Long enough though... definitely long enough.

originally posted by: Ilikesecrets
Color me surprised, i'm not. Let's see now Academia is off kilter (not Surprised) Oh noe's what will we do? Same as the latest Government DOJ, FBI corruption and cover-up's.

How do we even tell what side is up anymore? When will this go from a mass conspiracy to mass unrest or revolt?

To any debaters (real high school debate clubbers) Do you deny the fact that the debate club has died? Do you realize you are losing the future? Does anyone even realize what's at stake, here and now?

If you will accept any encouragement at all I can answer that ostensibly rhetorical post differently.

Our problem has never been that we can't ell right from wrong. It has never been the case that people 'chose to believe a lie." What seems to have happened is that we "believe" the pronouncements of others... without regard to who brings their opinion to us, who makes the claims that 'this is the one to listen to.'

The media, for example, tells us overtly and with high confidence "this is what we all think." They collect material and show us everything they want confirmed... they are compensated to do it.

Science has it's own little subculture... and you know what? For all their brains and academic prowess... it's no better for them than it is for us. They might even have to kiss more ass, and pretend worship their bosses MORE than anyone else. 'Disagreement' isn't a polite inconvenience for them... it's at worst career-ending.

[[About debate]]

Too many people keep saying that debate is dead. I refuse to allow that to be the case. Even here we have carved out a place to practice that art. Our problem here is that people have been led to believe it has to be hard... it doesn't; people seem to think it can't be 'fun' or 'entertaining'... it can be.

Do you want to take the opportunity to re-invent debate? We are within swinging distance of making that happen. All you have to do is step up to bat.

I apologize for the latter part of the post being way off topic... I just loved that unused forum... it matters to me.

a reply to: Maxmars

Yep.

Unconscionable.
The lying and cheating of the political class is trickling down to the medical and scientific class, all in exchange for prestige or money.

You can't cheat medicine/science/engineering/mathematics
There are grave real world consequences if you try to do so.
This is made worse by all the "everything is racist/gimme-gimme-gimme" subculture.

No developped society can survive this.
Twenty years ago, I NEVER imagined we would be at this point today.

Another 20 years like this and the US will look like South Africa, nothing works, intermittent unsafe water and sanitation, unreliable power, dangerous roads and transportation, rampant criminality.

originally posted by: cooperton
I was interviewing a Yale professor and he alleged that at least 50% of all peer-reviewed research is totally wrong. If that can slip through, imagine how easy it is for purposefully manipulated data to get through

And I'm inclined to believe your acquaintance. Research "grants" were always ripe for abuse...

When "how much" you publish is more important and profitable than "what" you publish... the deep slide begins.

ANYTHING that is dependant on the resources provided by outside sources be it government or private qill always be at risk of conducting poor research, because people are people and people like being relevant.

So its more likely that research and the results thereof will reflect the interest of those providing the funds rather than objective truths.

This becomes especially true the higher the stakes.

Researchers are not in-corruptible special people that show significantly higher integrity. They are survivers with a family just like the rest of us.

People who constantly live in a responsive state, will not be rational or act with integrity... they will provide the work asked of them.

originally posted by: wdkirk
I have a study that says the studies are fake.

You and me both!

Let's get together and apply for a Federal Grant...